Talk:Parish of Yipunyah

Australia: New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Parish of Yipunyah is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 20 May 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: Procedural close consensus was reached elsewhere. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 17:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yipunyah Parish → Parish of Yipunyah – Unable to move for some reason. Move as per WP:AWNB discussion to clean up huge mess in NSW parish articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife and Music1201: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yipunyah Parish (currently a redirect to Parish of Yipunyah) → Parish of Yipunyah – Unable to move for some reason. Move as per WP:AWNB discussion to clean up huge mess in NSW parish articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The linked discussion is still mid-discussion and has not yet come to a consensus. — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unanimous as far as these moves are concerned. Now there's just one sitting at a completely different title from all of the others. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this series of moves has unanimous support at WP:AWNB after ten days and feedback from quite a few editors. As the only editor who seems to have an issue with it, perhaps @Music1201: would like to explain his opinions on the naming of cadastral divisions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this naming convention is sensible.--Grahame (talk) 13:58, 20 May 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.