Talk:G.One (character)

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Ra.One
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Ra.One

Film: Indian

	Film portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Requested move edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

G.One (character) → G.One – Per WP:Precision. No other Wikipedia article with the name G.One, so the term (character) is redundant. Feel free to discuss, thanks! Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 04:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oppose "G.One" should redirect to the disambiguation page G1, since several of those terms are also spelt "g.one", "g-one", "g one", and "G-I", "G I", "G.I" depending on who writes it. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Yet another ill-advised and legalistic application of naming principles, to remove an obviously useful indication of the topic. Can we stop this sort of thing, please? Noetica^Tea? 02:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Let the title be specific about the article firstly. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Comment Thanks for the comment guys, I'm convinced this might not be a good idea now. xD Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 16:38, 13 December 2011 (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.