 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Page name
editThe Blue is the name of the area and the market. I have moved the article back to The Blue as all the names on the dab page The Blue (disambiguation), are nicknames with the exception of The Blue (album) which already had the dab extension.
I suggest that if the page is to be moved there should be a WP:RM request put in. --PBS (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- All of which might have been, I admit, some argument for not bothering to make the move in the first place, but is a very bad argument for taking the time to revert it. And if you think a requested-move discussion should take place if your reversion is to be reverted, then why not request one before you summarily reverted what was in place?--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with being bold, but please accept that if you are bold, and someone reverts the bold move/edit, it is up to you to show there is a consensus for the edit/move before repeating the bold edit/move. The best way to obtain a consensus for the move for a page like this one is to put in a WP:RM. --PBS (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Funny. You should have a talk with the editor who once, when I reverted his undiscussed bold edit (redirecting an article to an article that didn't mention the topic, with no attempt to merge the material), immediately reverted and told me that the responsibility for initiating discussion and determining consensus was mine if I wanted to undo his move. I guess that, when there are two points of view, the rule is: As long as things are arranged my way, everything is fine, but if you want things your way, it requires discussion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- There has been a discussion over this point in the last month or so at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 13, the discussion covers several sections starting at "Unilateral/bold moves". I think whoever you previously discussed this with is in a minority on this. --PBS (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Funny. You should have a talk with the editor who once, when I reverted his undiscussed bold edit (redirecting an article to an article that didn't mention the topic, with no attempt to merge the material), immediately reverted and told me that the responsibility for initiating discussion and determining consensus was mine if I wanted to undo his move. I guess that, when there are two points of view, the rule is: As long as things are arranged my way, everything is fine, but if you want things your way, it requires discussion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with being bold, but please accept that if you are bold, and someone reverts the bold move/edit, it is up to you to show there is a consensus for the edit/move before repeating the bold edit/move. The best way to obtain a consensus for the move for a page like this one is to put in a WP:RM. --PBS (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)