Talk:William Ive (Leicester MP)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by JHunterJ in topic Requested move 10 June 2020

Requested move 29 May 2020 edit

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 and will PROD the dab per the OP's alternative. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


– There have been two MPs named "William Ive", with the 17th-century one delineated in the four-sentence stub above and the 14th-century one only receiving a WP:DABMENTION at Sandwich (UK Parliament constituency)#1366–1640. I would also support an alternative to the current nomination — deletion of the William Ive (disambiguation) page per WP:ONEOTHER and replacement of the current hatnote atop William IveFor other people named William Ive, see William Ive (disambiguation) — with the more-specific For the 14th-century MP named William Ive, see Sandwich (UK Parliament constituency)#1366–1640. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (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.

Requested move 10 June 2020 edit

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


– The previous nomination at Talk:William Ive#Requested move 29 May 2020 concerned only a single bluelink and a single redlink. Since then, the disambiguation page has been expanded and, per Necrothesp's proposal in the previous discussion, the argument can now be made that the four-sentence stub delineating the 17th-century MP still does not represent what is expected of a putative WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that is listed as being more notable than the dab page's other two bluelinked stubs. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:24, 10 June 2020 (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.