Talk:Old North Knoxville

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Old North Knoxville is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 24 January 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.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I noted the comment by Andrewa and I followed the link but there's no any discussion that can halt the move and this page has been on the backlog for two days. If there's any discussion later and new consensus, the page can be moved again. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old North Knoxville, Knoxville → Old North Knoxville – no apparent necessity for disambiguation, since this seems to be the only place by this name, and, even if not would most likely be the primary topic by an overwhelming margin. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose per WP:USPLACE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no disambiguation is necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRECISE. I've just clarified the 12 Nov addition to USPLACE. Disambigution not required in this case. Station1 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and closer note please): See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 31 January 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.

Post move

Ammarpad, just to avoid any circular reasoning in the discussion on the guideline, did any arguments based on WP:USPLACE influence this decision or the one at Talk:South Knoxville? Andrewa (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Well, I am actually not sure, but by consensus reached and within bound of WP:AT policy and WP:D guideline, I believed the moves are justified. As you already know I closed both this RM and the one at Talk:South Knoxville due to their similitude and if you observe, there's more thorough discussion on Talk:South Knoxville than here. In closing them I considered the arguments forwarded in both discussions jointly and the essence of disambiguation. If you look at South Knoxville's RM the main opposition is to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY and that consistency is hinged to WP:USPLACE because the city is at Knoxville, Tennessee not Knoxville; but that point was proved not be always obeyed with examples of East Knoxville and West Knoxville which were given in the support section. That opposer had to eventually give up and implicitly support the move.

The other opposer opposed the move per WP:USPLACE but also hinted that the title ( as it was then) needs to be changed, thus augumenting the need "for move." I also noted that this oppose rationale was hinged to now disputed wording in WP:USPLACE guideline. In summary, since there's no need for disambiguation WP:D, need for consistency; ( with e.g. North Knoxville) and general support for move, I moved the pages, therefore "oppose per WP:USPLACE" was given very little weight. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you! Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]