Jump to content

Talk:James Wild (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 14 December 2019

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the rugby player, but no consensus to move the politician at this time, per the discussion below. As such, a disambiguation page has been created at the base title. Dekimasuよ! 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Member of Parliament is primary topic, over 1920s rugby league player who had 1-2 pageviews/day before recent increase caused by ambiguity with the politician. Hatnote guiding to architect James William Wild will need to be transferred to new primary topic, as well as hatnote linking to rugby player. PamD 18:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know this will sound very WP:CRYSTALy, but if you look at the vast majority of MP stubs created from the 2017 general election, most of them are decent size articles. It might be the case that this is revisted in 12 months from now, for example. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 articles here, and no clear primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 17 December 2019 (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.

Clarification of reason for protecting this article

[edit]

New user apologies for any errors with content or format.

This article was locked after my last edit (done anonymously via IP as I had no account). I accept the removal of my last edits now I have read the relevant guidelines but would say that my edit was not vandalism but a good faith update that did not adhere to sensible guidelines.

I am now looking at how to make these edits within the rules but question if why protected as no other signs of vandalism from the history

Mknash1974 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mknash1974, pretty much every edit to the article in the past day that is not a revert was inappropriate. Just look at the article history. I will leave a welcome template on your talk page with useful links that you can use to learn more about the policies and guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: Thanks, I can see what you mean now, I appreciate you taking the time. --Mknash1974 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]