Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Reliable sources regularly use natural disambiguation for these breed: How about some sources to put this to bed. |
|||
Line 4:
== Requested move 25 August 2014 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
The result of the move request was: '''no move''': no consensus in 58 days, last message was 14 days ago [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 09:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
----
[[:Teeswater sheep]] → {{no redirect|Teeswater (sheep)}} – Revert undiscussed move, see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847 #Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish]]. I'd hoped someone else might deal with this, but it seems not. There are a '''lot''' of these (this is just a first instalment), so please excuse (and ignore) any listings that are for any reason incorrect. <small>''Relisted''. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)</small> [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Line 396 ⟶ 401:
{{od}}And that's the tip of the iceberg of move requests, there are at least six across multiple articles. May want to consolidate all of these at WP:Agriculture. JMO. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:It would be highly irregular to host an RM discussion on the talk page of a wikiproject in which participants are already taking sides in the debate, because every single !vote will trigger watchlist notices for most participants in the project, and this will lead directly to project members dog-piling any comment they don't agree with. It would be blatant vote-stacking and simply lead to a [[WP:MR]] dispute. Multi-article RMs are normally (actually, almost universally) hosted at the talk page of one of the articles proposed for moving, and the RM bot will notify the talk pages of the rest. This is standard operating procedure. It's also SoP to group RMs when the issues raised by them are the same or similar, as I've done with [[:Blue Grey]] and the other small-group RMs noted immediately above. On multiple pages now, you've been venting in an ''[[ad hominem]]'' manner about this RM format as if it's some kind of wrongdoing on my part, but its the normal and expected method.<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
<hr />
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
| |||