Talk:Governor (India)

Requested move 14 July 2018

The following is a closed 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: move the page to Governor (India) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Governor (Indian states) → Governors of states of India – The page used to have natural disambiguation until 16 June, but a series of undiscussed moves brought it to parenthetical disambiguation. —Gazoth (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish and Station1: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to full discussion. This is an article about the office, not a list of governors, so the current title is more correct, the old one misleading. Maybe the current one is not perfect, but the longer one is just wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This could certainly be discussed, but as a recent undiscussed move, it should be moved back first, and then a RM opened. Station1 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. RM admins routinely decline requests to revert undiscussed moves when that would result in an obviously poor name and a discussion is going to open anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It's not a question of bureaucracy. The BRD concept is well established, and if the only reason an editor can't revert before discussing is technical, an admin should not overrule him just because he has the power, since that's the same as knowingly making a controversial move without discussing first, which is contrary to RM guidelines. RMs without consensus tend to the status quo, and that should be the stable name, not a recent change. Ideally, closers take that into account, but it doesn't always happen. Station1 (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the usage of plural in the title might make it seem like a list. How about Governor (India) on the lines of Governor (United States)? —Gazoth (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If it works for the US, it should work for India. The only concern I would have had would be assumption that it means "Governor of India" or "Governor of the United States" as a national-level title, but if that's not considered a likely problem for the US case, it wouldn't seem to be one for India.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Governor (India) would be ok, but Governor (Indian states) shows a singular/plural disagreement (a Governor governs only one state; governors govern states). Station1 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2018 (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.

Political science

Discretionary powers of the governor of state 47.11.86.11 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)