Talk:Apollo Eleven (horse)

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ego White Tray in topic Requested move 05 February 2014


Requested move 05 February 2014

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply



Apollo ElevenApollo Eleven (horse) – I contend that the primary usage of "Apollo Eleven" is the spacemission Apollo 11, so this title should redirect there. The disambiguation page Apollo 11 (disambiguation) can be used to indicate this racehorse. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Honestly this is going to WP:SNOW. Suggest the next editor passing through moves and closes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Word. Red Slash 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Looks like this was already done, and in this case, I personally would have agreed, given that the horse was most likely named in honor of the spaceflight (permanent names are usually given to the horse when it begins racing at age two), but tacky to snow close it less than 8 hours after it went up, particularly when it went up in the wee hours of the USA when everyone was asleep, and with only four people commenting. Just saying; poor form. Montanabw(talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not at all. This is so obvious that the discussion shouldn't have been opened in the first place. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply