Talk:Al-Tusi

Requested move 15 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Al-Tusi → Al-Tusi (surname) – The purpose of this request is to follow it up with redirecting "Al-Tusi" to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Aside from fact that in the west, "Al-Tusi" or "Tusi" always refers to this person, look at all other items in the list: Some of them even don't have "Tusi" in their common names, e.g., Ferdowsi, Abu Nasr as-Sarraj and Nizam al-Mulk.  This was a contested technical request by 5.219.86.66 (permalink). Dicklyon said: Primarytopic grabs should normally be discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC) –– Sam Sailor 15:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Notice: Hello, this is 5.219.86.66. Yes, I filed this speedy move request, but after seeing Dicklyon contesting it, I gave up on the idea entirely. As far as I am concerned, this discussion can end per WP:SNOW. Or not. In accordance with WP:ANI's verdict, Sam Sailor is now the official OP of this discussion. If he wishes to proceed with it, it is his choice. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  There is nothing called a "speedy move request". The RM is still filed by IP and has been transferred here according to protocol. Considering their declared intention in Special:Diff/901971967/902046641 of disruptively return and move the article, this discussion is not without importance. Sam Sailor 21:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose – The name appears to be used for quite a few people/articles. A term this ambiguous should be disambiguated, not grabbed for a primarytopic redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can see a point in the request, but I am not sure it necessarily is correct, and no convincing arguments have been made. I think the reader is, at least for now, better off with a set index at the base name. Sam Sailor 21:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Validity

User:Sam Sailor has started this thread only to oppose his own proposal later! If I don't want to move a page, I won't start a move request for it. What's going on here? 217.61.105.99 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It started as a technical request (WP:RMTR) by 5.219.86.66. Sam Sailor converted it to an RM discussion after it was contested (by me). I agree this is a flawed process, but it's what usually happens. I'd rather see contested technical requests just turned down and returned to requestor to see if they want to start an RM. Sometimes they won't. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to propose a change of the current process, WT:RM would be where an RfC could be filed. Sam Sailor 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

- @Sam Sailor, can you prove that what you did is policy-based? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.182.74.227 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)