- 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: moved. UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
– No ptopic, so swap around to put dab into ptopic location UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Note: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Tennis, WikiProject Olympics, and the projects associated with Kyle Spencer (journalist) have been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Support per nomination. There are three entries listed upon the Kyle Spencer (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the five-sentence stub delineating the tennis player dwarfs the combined notability of the remaining two entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Kyle_Spencer shows so little traffic we can't even identify trends, so the assumption of WP:PTOPIC should be voided. I don't know why we'd assume this would be a controversial move that needs prior discussion, why not just be bold and go ahead with it? --Joy (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- No harm in holding the discussion, other than delaying the inevitable, while sometimes interesting observations pop up from the peanut gallery that are good to note moving forward. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Support per Roman - I agree there's no primary topic here. Also FYI Joy, UtherSRG was correct in filing this as this is what RMs are for - to seek input from others. Sods law says had SRG been bold and moved it he would've been reverted- Happened to me a few times and ironically enough they were moved again afterwards anyway. Anyway support moving. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Off-topic
|
- I wouldn't be so strict, the WP:RM process doesn't in any way override the WP:Be bold guideline. I don't think we should bureaucratize the editing process beyond what is actually necessary; excessive discussions can also be a drain on the collective volunteer time. I would encourage you all to just weigh these decisions appropriately and not short-circuit towards the discussion option. --Joy (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Absurd comment. BOLD doesn't trump RM either. "excessive discussions can also be a drain on the collective volunteer time" is bs though as it only takes less than a minute to offer your 2p here and no one is being forced to comment either. I would encourage SRG and any other editors to continue using RM for its intended purpose.
- If you have a problem with people using RM the way it was intended then go to WP:VP/PR and do something about it. –Davey2010Talk 15:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I'm sorry, but why are you being so combative? --Joy (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with Joy that when a move doesn't look like it has reason to be controversial, a bold move is more appropriate than an RM. I do that a lot, and only a very small percentage of them get any objection and thus go to discussion. This saves a ton of editor time on the ones that don't need discussion (but the ones that get objected to sometimes led to huge discussions, and sometimes don't go through). Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
