Talk:Peter May

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Multiple incoming links[edit]

I've worked through the incoming links with AWB. The remaining pages listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Peter May are linked via a couple of templates; when the job queue has worked through the template changes there should be very few articles listed. Alternatively, if the decision is to reverse the move, you may have to rollback a lot of my recent edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on previous move[edit]

This move was done without a consensus to do so, and should be undone. Looking at the three articles, Peter May cricketer is in the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame, showing him as one of the best cricketers ever. Neither of the other Peter Mays are anywhere near as important. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as to speedy deletion[edit]

The speedy deletion is controversial because reasonable editors disagree as to what is the primary use. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that the initial move was controversial and undiscussed, so that should be reverted, and a discussion should take place. Hence, the speedy tag is entirely appropriate per WP:RM. St Anselm (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone agrees. Can an admin undo this move, so we can follow the correct procedure? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this page, so Peter May (cricketer) can be removed to Peter May, is neither non-controversial nor concensual; see Talk:Peter May (disambiguation)#RFC: Which should be the primary article?. So, speedy deletion of Peter May is not appropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. The page was originally the article about the cricketer, and then it was moved controversially. Therefore, it should be moved back until a consensus is reached. St Anselm (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this action is to revert a move without consensus- there is nothing controversial about following the WP:RM procedure properly, as this deletion is helping to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear that there is no concensus for moving back the Peter May (cricketer) to this page, so simply moving back is not warranted, if you prefer to follow the policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is to move a controversial move back, and then gain consensus. It's only been a few hours, and only 4 people have contributed so far, on a RfC that probably shouldn't exist, since a move discussion should have been used instead. Not moving this page back would be an attempt to deliberately circumnavigate the proper procedure of WP:RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]