Talk:List of Cymru Premier clubs

List of Cymru Premier clubs is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2013	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Wales Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Welsh football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Requested move 29 July 2020

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 page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 15:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Premier League clubs → List of Cymru Premier clubs – The league changed its name in 2019. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 11:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, to match parent article at Cymru Premier. Giant Snowman 11:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment post move

This should have been relisted. The parent article was moved

20:57, 24 July 2019‎ Onshore talk contribs block‎ m  31,552 bytes 0‎  Onshore moved page Welsh Premier League to Cymru Premier: FAW launched brand new identity on 24 July 2019 [1]

And I hope you will note that this was the very day the renaming was announced, and that the only justification given was a primary source. It was a good faith move I expect, but in error.

What we should of course have done here is to look for secondary sources that use the new name in considering this move, a year later. If they are there no problem, if not then see about reverting the undiscussed move. Neither nom ChrisTheDude nor supporters GiantSnowman and Ortizesp did their homework, and their !votes should all have been discarded by YoungForever. We all make mistakes.

But no great harm done. Secondary sources may already be there, and if not will probably arise with time. Wikipedia will survive. Challenging the close at MR would be pointless. Left to itself it will fix itself. Probably. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: what a nonsense comment. The new name of 'Cymru Premier' is clearly supported by reliable third-party sources, such as BBC and Daily Post. Don't accuse me (or others) of not doing their research when (respectfully) you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about here. The close was good, the move was good. Giant Snowman 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous and pompous comment. Here's a host of Google News results which show the new name is in current usage. How about assuming a little good faith rather than accusing me of "not having done my homework".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: As the closer, I did a Google search before I closed it as moved, secondary reliable sources do called it 'Cymru Premier' fyi. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! But the problem I have is, the close did not mention this evidence. So far as others reading this RM are concerned, it appears to have been performed on the evidence of a single primary source. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly @Andrewa: what an embarrassing comment, especially from one admin to TWO others. I expect an apology at the very least. Giant Snowman 21:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect it to make me any friends. What exactly do you think I should apologise for saying? It appears that the closer did do some homework. I hope you did some too. But what is the use of that, if none of you present this evidence in your !votes?

As I have said, the close should stand IMO. But I think the point also needs to be made that it was not a good close. And I do not hold the closer responsible in the least. As you have pointed out, the move was supported by not one but two experienced and highly respected admins. But neither provided a valid !vote. Isn't that worthy of comment? Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I did not expect this to make me any friends.

I'm truly sorry that people are offended by my comments, and especially that they think I don't know what I'm talking about. And I do tend to be a bit of a radical, as many of you would know. But part of my radicalism is that I think that wp:NPA should be taken a lot more seriously. Perhaps I have failed to be a gentle editor on this occasion. For that I do apologise.

But not for raising the issue. My motivation was and is that I think the close was bad, but that it wasn't the closer's fault. I'm trying to give everyone a little help to do better next time.

The only possibly valid rationale in the three !votes (counting the implicit one by nom) was to match parent article at Cymru Premier. And it does look OK, until you dig a little. Admins (self included) are kept to a higher standard than other editors. If this RM is because of a change of name, and the only evidence presented is that another article has (presumably) had its name changed already, surely it makes sense to check that the move of the parent article was justified? And it wasn't. No way.

But the evidence of that was of course overwritten by the move, and this good faith edit just muddies the water. The evidence was not provided by the !votes, and it was not the closer's job to find it. That would be a supervote. Provide the evidence by all means, but you are then involved, and should not close the RM. Possibly my earlier comment mislead the closer on this point.

I hope we can now all get back to editing Wikipedia. Possibly I have just wasted people's time in even raising it, but I still think there was an issue that needed raising. I'm just sorry I have evidently failed to raise it constructively. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked closer for this edit, which removes the post-move supervote. I guess one other option would have been to reopen and allow the evidence subsequently provided to be presented as it should have been in the first place, which would be neater but (yes, maybe leading with my chin here) overreaction IMO.

I still think that the move was OK but the process flawed. The closer relied on !votes that should all have been discarded, cast by people who should all have known better. Perhaps I was too confrontational, but if apologies are owed they are both to myself and to the closer. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]