Talk:Thomas Keightley (disambiguation)

Requested move 1

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

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]