This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:14, July 11, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. The article was renamed in accordance with
WP:COMMONNAME, which applies only to mainspace. Since "JEF United Ichihara Chiba" is the correct full name of the professional football club and not an "incorrect name", there is no need to rename this template. This was mentioned along with no need to rename
Category:JEF United Ichihara Chiba in the closing statement; however the nominator of this template move went ahead and moved the category unnecessarily. I could move the category back to the correct full name, but I am concerned that would be misuse of the page mover right. Paineu/
c00:58, 23 November 2016 (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.
Requested move 4 April 2018
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
This appears uncontroversial and a move from the requested title was performed by cut and paste in 2011, so I am putting this through to merge histories.
Dekimasuよ!17:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
In light of the previous discussion above, I am moving this back to the stable title for the rest of the discussion period now that I have merged the histories.
Dekimasuよ!18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for asking,
Dekimasu! The question I would ask is just how stable is the article title? (Ref. here and here) It was moved to its present title three times in ten years, the
most recent move in 2016, about 17 months ago. My concern is not what these pages are named, my concern is that we do not want the
Wikipedia category (already renamed), the
Commons category and this template jumping around from title to title. In this case, I have to continue to oppose, because I would want the article title to be more stable with at least two years at the same name; however, I would certainly go with the consensus that results from this debate. Paine Ellsworthput'r there00:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
So as concerns this issue and the other reasons already stated, we see that long-term stability of the title may or may not be attained as yet. Do English reliable sources help us out on this? The nom,
Gonta-Kun, might want to confirm it. Paine Ellsworthput'r there02:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay, I've struck my oppose !vote, and thank you for reminding me of those sources. From this point if
Dekimasu concurs, this can be considered a tech move as far as I'm concerned. I'll go ahead and rename the three Commons categories. Paine Ellsworthput'r there18:06, 11 April 2018 (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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:14, July 11, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. The article was renamed in accordance with
WP:COMMONNAME, which applies only to mainspace. Since "JEF United Ichihara Chiba" is the correct full name of the professional football club and not an "incorrect name", there is no need to rename this template. This was mentioned along with no need to rename
Category:JEF United Ichihara Chiba in the closing statement; however the nominator of this template move went ahead and moved the category unnecessarily. I could move the category back to the correct full name, but I am concerned that would be misuse of the page mover right. Paineu/
c00:58, 23 November 2016 (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.
Requested move 4 April 2018
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
This appears uncontroversial and a move from the requested title was performed by cut and paste in 2011, so I am putting this through to merge histories.
Dekimasuよ!17:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
In light of the previous discussion above, I am moving this back to the stable title for the rest of the discussion period now that I have merged the histories.
Dekimasuよ!18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for asking,
Dekimasu! The question I would ask is just how stable is the article title? (Ref. here and here) It was moved to its present title three times in ten years, the
most recent move in 2016, about 17 months ago. My concern is not what these pages are named, my concern is that we do not want the
Wikipedia category (already renamed), the
Commons category and this template jumping around from title to title. In this case, I have to continue to oppose, because I would want the article title to be more stable with at least two years at the same name; however, I would certainly go with the consensus that results from this debate. Paine Ellsworthput'r there00:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
So as concerns this issue and the other reasons already stated, we see that long-term stability of the title may or may not be attained as yet. Do English reliable sources help us out on this? The nom,
Gonta-Kun, might want to confirm it. Paine Ellsworthput'r there02:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay, I've struck my oppose !vote, and thank you for reminding me of those sources. From this point if
Dekimasu concurs, this can be considered a tech move as far as I'm concerned. I'll go ahead and rename the three Commons categories. Paine Ellsworthput'r there18:06, 11 April 2018 (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.