Talk:Stuyvesant Street

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 per request. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Stuyvesant Street (Manhattan) → Stuyvesant Street – This will clear up ambiguity about Stuyvesant Street's title. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment that will not clear up ambiguity, since you're removing disambiguatory information. Though the target name would be as precise as needed, so the article should be moved, but the nomination rationale is very poor. -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• There is likely a Stuyvesant Street in many towns and cities. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move - You can't "clear up ambiguity" by removing disambiguating information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The IP is correct. The current title isn't ambiguous, but it's overprecise. The current title redirects here, without any indication of ambiguity, so this is perfectly within policy—we only disambiguate when necessary. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support; if Stuyvesant Street redirects here, there's nothing to disambiguate from. Stuyvesant Street is the more natural and more concise title. bobrayner (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If this the only article for a Stuyvesant Street then there is no need to disambiguate. Zarcadia (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2013 (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.