| Revision as of 03:14, 2 November 2009 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 editsm moved User talk:Mlundblad/animalitystudies to Talk:Animality Studies← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:20, 2 November 2009 edit undoRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Requested move: moved.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Requested move == | == Requested move == | ||
| {{polltop}} as non-controversial move. (The user could have moved it if autoconfirmed.) --] <small>(])</small> 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{movereq|AnimalityStudies}} | |||
| ] → ] — - --] (]) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Mlundblad | ] → ] — - --] (]) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Mlundblad | ||
| '''Oppose:''' First, the name is not a real word. According to ] the article should be called '''Animality studies''' (note the separation of words and ] capitalization). Second, there is no evidence that "animality studies" is generally recognized as a field separate from ]; indeed, it appears to represent a non-], and perhaps even a ] viewpoint. Third, the subject is already treated in more depth in the ] article, and is therefore an impermissible ]. Fourth, this proposed article has almost no encyclopedic content. Fifth, this proposed article stands by itself: in has no internal links to other relevant Misplaced Pages articles. For these reasons, if this page were moved to article space in its current state, it would be an immediate candidate for ]. —] ] 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | '''Oppose:''' First, the name is not a real word. According to ] the article should be called '''Animality studies''' (note the separation of words and ] capitalization). Second, there is no evidence that "animality studies" is generally recognized as a field separate from ]; indeed, it appears to represent a non-], and perhaps even a ] viewpoint. Third, the subject is already treated in more depth in the ] article, and is therefore an impermissible ]. Fourth, this proposed article has almost no encyclopedic content. Fifth, this proposed article stands by itself: in has no internal links to other relevant Misplaced Pages articles. For these reasons, if this page were moved to article space in its current state, it would be an immediate candidate for ]. —] ] 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{pollbottom}} | |||
Revision as of 03:20, 2 November 2009
Requested move
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was as non-controversial move. (The user could have moved it if autoconfirmed.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Mlundblad/animalitystudies → AnimalityStudies — - --Mlundblad (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Mlundblad
Oppose: First, the name is not a real word. According to naming conventions the article should be called Animality studies (note the separation of words and sentence case capitalization). Second, there is no evidence that "animality studies" is generally recognized as a field separate from animal studies; indeed, it appears to represent a non-neutral point of view, and perhaps even a fringe viewpoint. Third, the subject is already treated in more depth in the Animal studies article, and is therefore an impermissible content fork. Fourth, this proposed article has almost no encyclopedic content. Fifth, this proposed article stands by itself: in has no internal links to other relevant Misplaced Pages articles. For these reasons, if this page were moved to article space in its current state, it would be an immediate candidate for deletion. —Finell (Talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.