Talk:Thomas Keightley (disambiguation)

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

Requested move 1[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Requested move/dated|Thomas Keightley (disambiguation)}} ~~Thomas Keightley → Thomas Keightley (disambiguation) – Thomas Keightley should be the Move target for Thomas Keightley (historian) which meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria.~~ Kiyoweap (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a disjointed malformatted mutlimove request. the other half is located at Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian) ; someone please fix this. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what you mean by "malformatted". I don't understand what you think needs to be fixed. Sure, there is a cascading series of moves, but otherwise, isn't it a commonplace situation for a technical delete request being required to perform a move sometimes?

However, I do see that it's bad that discussion gets forked in two different Talk pages, so I will ask further participants to consolidate comments at the other talk page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – no primarytopic rationale has been presented. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I didn't wasn't capable of presenting a "rationale" as you put it. I did have available at my fingertips my own Google search and analysis beforehand before I wrote up the request. In shorthand, "scholar.google.com" search on "Thomas Keightley" constrained to time period "1900-present", from a sample of 100 gave the breakdown of 98 TK (historian) vs. 2 TK (official) in passing mention. Is this slam dunk enough for you? There are other points, but I'll present them on the other talk page. I was counting on anybody who weighs in to perform such a cursory check yourself based on the search query of your own choosing, before forming or registering your opinion, but I guess I am disappointed in this. I would make a note that your "oppose" opinion which isn't based on any rationale counts for nothing, as per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: PLEASE continue further discussion at Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian), where I will give more fuller points of argument. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want people commenting at this discussion, you shouldn't have opened two discussions at once, instead of using a multimove with one discussion only. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used "" to disable the single move listing above, and listed the move request with {{move-multi}} on the Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian) as you suggested. So are we all right now? --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]