Talk:Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

RR

What does "RR" in the records column signify? DH85868993 (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Regional records" per the official site (and OP's user talk page)(Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)).

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

September 5

Don't seem to have gotten to it yet. Here's a link.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics → Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – While the initial intention of creating a parallel to Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics is acknowledged, this patently is not a chronological summary. It is a list of event winners, so let's title it honestly. Kevin McE (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd almost hate for that to be done, but making it more like the Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics might be more work than I'm prepared to do. Still I'm open to trying.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the evidence after 11 days is that no-one has any interest in making it like that article, which was presumably the intention: I certainly don't, and interest will surely diminish now that it is over. The original intention was noble, but if it is not going to live up to that, then let's be honest. Kevin McE (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the vidence does not indicate that. Its a tedious process (and more so when ongoing for dialy updates) and takes time.Now that its done such updates can follow. Im just ifnishing up the data and then this week should be through with the prose.

Improvement is a better alternative to deletion.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please have enough respect for other readers to sequence your replies appropriately.

12 days after the first medals were awarded, we still have zero prose, and we do not have a summary: we have a list of winners. Nobody has proposed deletion of this article, so your comment is hard to fathom in the context of this thread. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but I think there have been cases where Paralympic articles evolve over time rather than being "at the moment" the way the Olympics are. In some nations the Paralympics aren't even covered until after they're done. I think NBC won't have their little special on it until the 16th or 17th. Going by Youtube hits the interest may never be that great, but possibly we could wait until September 20 to make the switch or not. If at that point it has not moved toward actually being a chronological summary we make the switch.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough: no objection to a slightly longer than usual RM process when so reasonably requested, and now that there is some content and reason to hope for more to follow, I might in time change my own !vote to an oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Alas I have developed a moderately nasty cold so likely won't be able to do any more expansion for a few days. Hopefully Lihaas, or someone, can do stuff in my absence.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess it turned out to be true that no one else was interested as no one else did anything (except fix a disambiguation) by the looks of it. So I guess if you want to change the title/purpose I'll sadly bow out from objecting.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One editor does not equate a conseneus. And per the above user's comment at me "Please have enough respect ...", its also courtesy/"Please have enough respect " to inform others. There was one support, one oppose, and one give up. Tht is not a consensus by ANY stretch of the imagination.vLihaas (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there was no consensus - there wasn't even a proper poll! Roger (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And if that is what you (Lihaas) think, you have already been referred to the appropriate means to challenge the page move, wp:move review. Reverting against the closure decision of an administrator is not the way to do it. An argument based on not being informed of a discussion that you took part in is patently flawed. And your assurance on 10th September that the article would gain a lot more prose within the week is still unfulfilled. I would be delighted to see an article that is accurately described as a chronological summary of the Paralympics, and thus named: this is not one at present, and is no nearer to being one than it was when your opinion was not upheld in a RM discussion. If you think it was prematurely or erroneously closed, the procedure for challenging that is open to you: reverting a formal decision is not the way to do it. Do you actually have any reason to argue that the article, as currently composed (and it has been basically stable for more than 7 weeks) would be better described as a chronological summary rather than a list of winners?

Roger: what do you mean by a proper poll? It followed the formal procedure for a potentially contentious page move. It is perhaps unfortunate that so few people contributed to the discussion: that does not invalidate it. Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thre is again consensus right here that ther wasnot consensus in the first palce. the O US is on YOU to get that consensus.You are rpeatedly esdit warring because the above and this is against the move. Your whim and wishes to dictate what it should be!Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The move review has been started: I am unclear as to how you think the debate is advanced by such a personalised rant. Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)