Talk:Edwin Maxwell
Latest comment: 9 years ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 31 May 2015
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 31 May 2015
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
– No primary topic of the same name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, at least until we have an opportunity to see if the actor or the attorney general is a more popular topic. Right now, it's a WP:TWODABS situation, adequately handled by a hatnote. Dohn joe (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support this move 76.120.162.73 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why? Dohn joe (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support, no demonstration of absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support & Oppose - Support the Edwin Maxwell (actor) and oppose renaming the disambig page. Why? KISS. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, because Edwin Maxwell has to point somewhere. If it doesn't go to the actor, then the usual rules of WP would say that it should go to the disambiguation page. If the actor is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Edwin Maxwell", then that's where the title should go. Dohn joe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. when the putative WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is barely a three-sentence stub with a filmography, the change should be made without even a discussion. If there is an objection (there rarely is) a vote can be held. Such votes, however, are always at a disadvantage — once a disambiguation page loses its minor-notability "primary topic", few, if any, will vote to restore a small-part character actor to such a position. Starting from the present position, however, there is always the possibility of arriving at "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.