Talk:Yeoman (disambiguation)

Move request

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Yeoman (disambiguation) → yeoman — The current article yeoman is about the word. It clearly describes a large number of separate concepts. Per WP:NAD, Wikipedia articles are to be on singular concepts. Multiple concepts with the same name must be disambiguated. As such, the existing yeoman article can be overwritten by this disambiguation page. Powers ^T 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. You describe a reasonable disambiguation structure. / PerEdman 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose . The present article yeoman is quite useful; it should not be overwritten by a navigation page. Those who think it should be deleted should take it to AfD, although I can't see why; this should not have been attempted through a move request. There is a disambiguation page (and this is it). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I avoided deletion because I didn't want someone to say "Speedy keep, nominator is suggesting a rename not deletion" or something like that. Powers ^T 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• SupportComment — I think the article now at Yeoman should be moved to Yeoman (word) and much of its content that is not about the word should be moved to other articles. I do agree that the dab page should be moved to the ambiguous base name. --Una Smith (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have moved the article formerly at Yeoman to Yeoman (word). It had all the hallmarks of being an article about a word, and all comments here seem to agree about that. I have no doubt that incoming links to Yeoman need to be disambiguated, and it seems appropriate to move the disambiguation page there. --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  so... despite two oppose !votes, you just decided to go ahead and implement the move anyway? I don't particularly care about the article, but being ignored isn't exactly the most pleasant feeling.
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have not ignored anyone. The dab page remains at Yeoman (disambiguation). Furthermore, in accord with the substance of the oppose statements, I have not "overwritten" any article and I have begun the actual work to properly avoid WP:DICDEF. --Una Smith (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, I certainly don't want ot get in the way of anyone actually editing. It just seems a bit... pointed, I guess, to be moving things around while the movereq is open. You could go ahead and close it, with an explaination about what you've decided to do...
  — V = I * R (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — properly avoiding WP:DICDEF is actual work. If the subject interests you, or the state of the article actually bothers you, then get to work editing instead of wasting time with process. I apologize for edging towards incivility here, but this type of behavior is something that I see as damaging to the project at this point. Wikipedia needs a lot of copy editing now because we're over the "growth through expansion" stage and are firmly into the "growth through content" stage. Help improve articles, please.
  — V = I * R (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but what? There's nothing wrong with this article; I see no reason to improve it. What I'm asking for is for this article to be moved over the non-encyclopedic article yeoman. I'm not improving the yeoman article because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That's not something that can be "improved"; instead we simply excise it. Powers ^T 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In other words, you're process shopping here. Instead of doing what you really want to do and listing yeoman for AfD, you're taking the easier route and trying to use the movereq process to acomplish the same goal through a back door. I'm sorry, but I've got to say that this just seems like laziness... you're ending up abusing process because you don't like the content, but you not only can't be bothered to improve the content, you can't be bothered to go through the potentially more lengthy process? Look, I'm perfectly willing to assume that this is some sort of mistake or misunderstanding on my part, but based on the two replies above this is the picture that I'm currently seeing.
      — V = I * R (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • AfD is only intended for when we want to get rid of an article completely. If I'd said in an AfD nomination "I want this page to become a disambiguation page instead of its current content," the proper response to that at AfD is "Speedy keep; turning a page into a disambiguation page does not require AfD". I wished to avoid that outcome. Powers ^T 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeoman (word)

Okay, so assuming a move of yeoman to yeoman (word), thus decoupling this move request from any need to delete the content currently in the article about the word, are there any other objections to moving this disambiguation page to the base name? Powers ^T 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dekimasu has moved Yeoman (word) back to Yeoman, pending conclusion of this discussion. Even so, moving the dab page to Yeoman does not involve deleting the content of the article now at Yeoman. It would help to restate this requested move as a multimove, including moving Yeoman to Yeoman (word). --Una Smith (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This situation seems too complicated for a simple request. I'm not sure what to do next. Powers ^T 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article now at Yeoman is a grab bag of stuff called "yeoman". It needs major editing to move content to the other existing articles about various entities called "yeoman" and "yeomen": the honorary titles, the designated military units, the independent farmers, the vassals. It is quite a mess, likely stemming from the fact that the page name is ambiguous. Once cleaned up, the article about the word can be moved to Yeoman (word). --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the word is notable enough on its own to merit an article. Powers ^T 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever the problems of the current article Yeoman, it is the primary use of the title on WP. The only other possible current uses of the title Yeoman are short articles about a town with a population of 94, a car produced for one year, and a list of six people with the surname, all of which are better at their current titles. Yeoman is not entirely about the word, so should not be moved to Yeoman (word), and even if some of it were broken out, whatever is left will most likely remain the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not entirely about the word? Read the first sentence: "Yeoman is a noun..." Not "A yeoman is a person who..." but "Yeoman is a noun." Powers ^T 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not entirely about the word. Sure, the lede needs a rewrite, and there's stuff about the word elsewhere, but there are large sections mostly about the topic, not the word, just for example The English yeoman or Historical duties. Station1 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Are you sure you're not looking for Wictionary?  / Per Edman 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I'm trying to prevent us from overlapping too much with Wiktionary. Powers ^T 18:31, 27 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.