Talk:Badults
Add topicLatest comment: 11 years ago by BDD in topic Requested move 12 May 2015
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 12 May 2015
[edit]- 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)
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)
- I second this move request as being technical in nature per WP:PRECISE. – Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Safiel and Steel1943: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Move it to “Badults”. “Badults” refers only to this TV show, so the disambiguator is unnecessary. Gorobay (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support. I can't find any other use of this term in Wikipedia. kennethaw88 • talk 16:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.