Talk:Pythian Baseball Club

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Steel1943 in topic Move back to proper spelling ("Base Ball")

Untitled

edit

Can someone move this page back to its proper title: Pythian Base Ball Club? Baseball was not spelled as one word until later in the 1870s/80s. From what I can tell, most sources list this club with the then-used two-word "base ball".

Move back to proper spelling ("Base Ball")

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: the submitter 64.85.220.160 boldly Merged Pythian Baseball Club into Philadelphia Pythians. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply


Pythian Baseball ClubPythian Base Ball Club – Baseball was not spelled as one word until later in the 1870s/80s. From what I can tell, most sources list this club with the then-used two-word "base ball". Does anyone object to this move? Rgrds. --64.85.221.22 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, it has been 8 days with no objections so I requested a move via WP:RM. Rgrds. --64.85.214.219 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. The reason why you did not get any responses for you move request is most likely due to the fact that you did not post the move properly per WP:RM. I'm going to go ahead and do so, since just because you did not get any responses does not automatically deem this to be a technical move. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
This discussion has now been listed properly. I'm going to vote No Opinion due to the fact that I do see that this article was moved from Pythian Base Ball Club to Pythian Baseball Club by User:GoingBatty on February 18, 2012. However, I am unsure which spelling is the correct spelling, so I am not voting with an opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment @Steel1943 Please do not move around my comments, I have restored my original comments in the original place.
  • Second, this is bureaucracy overkill. When the article was moved with no discussion, that was the "B" of WP:BRD. I then "R" because it was incorrect (but IPs cannot revert a move for technical reasons). I then initiated the "D" of BRD. No one cared to participate. The original title should be restored and we should be discussing the first move.
  • Third, no posting of the move is necessary at RM in these situations, as per the instructions on WP:RM. This was an uncontroversial reversion of an undiscussed move. Weather they call it a "technical move", as they do now, or an "uncontroversial move" as they did a few months ago, the instructions do not require nor even suggest listing it at RM in such a situation. I know you have only been editing for just around a year, so I am assuming good faith, but please refresh yourself on proper Wikipedia procedures. Rgrds. Note, I am the same person as the above 2 IPS. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.220.160 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
When I went back and read that, it sounded so very rude, I have stuck it and I apologize. --64.85.220.160 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 64.85.220.160, thank you responding to your comment earlier. I actually was about to save my response to your comment, but will now withdraw, given this follow-up. By the way, my purpose with this was to line up this move discussion so that other editors would be able to properly discuss this topic, and it looks like a resolution was made. Either way, regarding your original request, I felt like I could "reasonably disagree with the move" (a quote taken directly out of WP:RM/TR); I would have contested this move regardless, making this move subject to the very discussion we are having right now per WP:RM. And I gave WP:BUREAU a look ... anyways, I'm going to post a response to that on my own talk page since I know that IPs do not have user pages. Anyways, good catch on finding that article, and good job being bold! If I had seen the necessary merge that you just performed, I would have merged the two articles as well. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
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.