The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of string theory topics → Outline of string theory — Cybercobra renamed the page to "Outline of string theory", but Verbal came along weeks later and reverted it. I propose it be named "Outline of string theory".

• Support rename to "Outline of string theory" - the page is in a rudimentary outline format, and can be further improved as an outline. It also would make a nice addition to Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, and provide a good starting point for such an outline. It would save us the trouble of having to start over from scratch, and would avoid the confusion of having two outlines on the subject (even though the OOK version would be more comprehensive). The Transhumanist 01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support - "List of string theory topics" sound overly complicated. "Outline of the string theory" is much better, but more importantly, this article is an WP:OUTLINE. -- penubag  (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend Withdrawing Pending probable RFC on outlines generally. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Weak Support The outline name is less verbose, and as a field of physics, "string theory" is a sufficiently abstract/general noun to not sound weird in conjunction with "Outline of" (unlike some other outlines). But I really don't care for the drama, so I'm not gonna push strongly on this. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose without resolution of the outline problem, which the transhumanist agreed to but has now chosen to ignore. A pile-on bu his personal friends and members of the outline project does not show community consensus. This is a list, lists are supported by policy and guidelines, whereas the outline project has failed to achieve any kind of consensus. There should be no "OOK" version and no duplication until this problem is resolved. Referring to a failed policy doesn't establish anything. This article was originally a list, and lists are supported by policy and guidelines, and community consensus. In this case it is also a better name which describes the topic and allows more flexible organisation, not tied down to the WP:OUTINES style guide (which contradicts WP:MOS in several paces and encourages GFDL violations). The "staus quo" until the outline problem is solved is "list of".Verbal chat 07:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the lack of support demonstrated even at WT:OUTLINE, and The Transhumanist's threat of disruption by duplicating the page unless the move is made should not be seen positively. Verbal chat 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Outline of string theory" is a title that almost sounds like a joke (outline of string). It's a shame no one is having a centralized discussion about this whole "outline" thing, but until someone does, it's hard to support new "outline of (humorous phrase)" topics. As such, oppose any move. Hipocrite (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If a project want an article naming according to their pattern, that project ought at the very least do some work on it first. It's currently a list, not an "outline" of anything. Oppose Knepflerle (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose such a rename until a proper RFC on "Outline of [topic]" and "List of [topic]" pages is held. I think establishing community consensus on the wider issue is badly needed. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until after an RfC. At the moment there seems to be no community consensus for this naming convention. For something important at this I feel an RfC is warranted, even if a project gains consensus, so as to obtain the widest possible consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a separate outline article should be written. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.