Talk:Randy Brown (basketball)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Randy Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503072808/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F04-28-2009%2F0005015004&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F04-28-2009%2F0005015004&EDATE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The version 02:16, 4 May 2020‎ Rikster2 of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing stub.--Wing (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Randy Brown (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Randy Brown → Randy Brown (basketball)
• Randy Brown (disambiguation) → Randy Brown

– I procedurally closed a related RM on the disambiguation page after reverting the bold move of this page by User:Mungo Kitsch (no offense intended, but that move also required discussion). That move was premised on an asserted absence of a primary topic at this title. BD2412 T 04:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Crouch, Swale and Roman Spinner: Pinging editors who participated in the recently closed discussion. BD2412 T 04:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There are six men listed upon the Randy Brown (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the basketball player from the 1990s left such an indelible imprint upon the game that it overshadows the combined notability of the remaining five men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support the other move discussion should probably have been left open, there's nothing wrong with leaving an undiscussed move/MALPLACED issue for a week. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doing so would make the undiscussed move a fait accompli, since the RM is intended to discuss only the move proposed in RM. It would also run counter to the letter of WP:RM, which requires discussion and consensus for any potentially contentious move, and would leave in place a malplaced disambiguation redirect from a "Foo" title to its "Foo (disambiguation)" title. Fixing that would entail making exactly the change proposed in the RM, which basically also renders that a fait accompli. BD2412 T 17:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it would be a fait accompli, if there was no consensus the undiscussed move would have been reverted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but we have a specific community-developed procedure in place in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts, and we should avoid getting into a pattern of conduct where that procedure is ignored. BD2412 T 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, clearly no primary topic. I agree the initial RM could have remained open: closers should be able to figure out what moves need to be made (or reverted) in order to enact the discussion's consensus (or lack thereof). – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons stated above, and the reasons I have already stated in the contexts and edit summaries of the original moves. @BD2412: no offense taken. I appreciate you reminding me of the proper protocol wen it comes to pages and circumstances such as this. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mungo Kitsch: I appreciate your understanding. BD2412 T 15:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.