Talk:Badults

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Requested move 12 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Badults (TV series) → Badults – I changed the target of this redirect after declining an improper attempt at speedy deletion. However, I think it would be prudent to move the target Badults (TV series) to this location, as it would seem to be the primary topic under this name. Safiel (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I second this move request as being technical in nature per WP:PRECISE. – Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Safiel and Steel1943: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is "this location"? Please be clear and avoid elegant variation. What is to be moved to where? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Umm, I though this was rather clear, especially considering my statement about WP:PRECISE. The disambiguator is unnecessary. (Well, Safiel and David-King, this was unexpected.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Speedy move/strong support since all this move is doing is removing the disambiguator. The ambiguous title already redirects here. In fact, I actually move to close this discussion and re-request it on WP:RMTR since I'm really not understanding the contest. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Move it to “Badults”. “Badults” refers only to this TV show, so the disambiguator is unnecessary. Gorobay (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Move per above. I'm failing to understand why this was contested - the plain title redirects here and there are no other contenders for primary topic. The redirect resulting from this move should be tagged as {{R from move}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Definitely move. One does not require the skills of an adept logician to conclude that Anthony Appleyard has deficient comprehension skills. His contestation should thereby be repudiated. David-King (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support. I can't find any other use of this term in Wikipedia. kennethaw88 • talk 16:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Add topic