Template talk:History of Fiji
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Requested moves
[edit]- Template talk:History of Fiji Almost all the articles listed on Template:History of Fiji have names that go against Wikipedia naming policy:
- History of Fiji:Discovery[disambiguation needed] should be at Discovery of Fiji);
- History of Fiji:The rise and fall of Cakobau should be merged with Cakobau);
- History of Fiji:Colonial Fiji should be at Colonial Fiji);
- History of Fiji:The modern nation should be at Modern history of Fiji);
- Fiji Constitutional Crisis of 1977 should be at 1977 Fijian constitutional crisis);
- Fiji coup of 2000:Timeline should be at Timeline of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état);
- Fiji coup of 2000:Mutinies should be at Mutinies of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état);
- Fiji coup of 2000:Aftermath should be at Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état) (alternatively, these last three could be merged with the main article, Fiji coup of 2000.
Grutness...wha? 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- I agree with most of these proposed moves. I think the title of the fourth one should make it clear that the article is a historical one ("Modern Fiji" is a bit ambiguous, as it could cover sociology, the economy, etc; the emphasis is on its history). As for number 2, I am totally opposed to merging this article with the Cakobau biography. This article is not a biography, but a historical article. It definitely needs a bit more work done on it to take some of the emphasis off Cakobau, but to merge it with the biography would leave a GAP in the historical series (I wrote this series of articles to cover the span of Fiji's history, and am opposed to moving it for that reason. David Cannon 11:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I am totally opposed to your last suggestion of merging the last three with the main "Fiji coup of 2000" article. They DID originally comprise one article, which got too long. As I intend to add a lot more material, it makes no sense to re-merge them into one bloated article that is going to grow even more bloated. David Cannon 11:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I can understand that, and withdraw my merge suggestions. But even if those three and the Rise and fall of Cakobau ones are left as stand-alone articles, they still need better names. The current names fall foul of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the need to rename the articles. Thank you for alerting me to the policy - I can't believe that I didn't know it after 18 months on Wikipedia, 11 of them as a sysop, but it's true. I must have overlooked it, somehow. When I get back home later today I'll have a look at some other history-related articles for other countries (USA, England, etc.) and see if there's a precedent that we can follow:-) David Cannon 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I can understand that, and withdraw my merge suggestions. But even if those three and the Rise and fall of Cakobau ones are left as stand-alone articles, they still need better names. The current names fall foul of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done all of these. If there are any objections to the decisions I made then just let me know and I'll sort them out. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)