Talk:Pyshchevyk
(Redirected from Talk:Pyschevyk)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | On 1 June 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pyschevyk to Pyshchevyk. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 1 June 2021
[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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Pyschevyk → Pyshchevyk – Spelling per WP:UKR. —Michael Z. 15:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- support per mon—blindlynx (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Mzajac: it seems you're not facing any opposition on any of these WP:UKR-compliant move requests you've started recently, so I suggest just boldy making these moves yourself in the future (or via WP:RMT where necessary). Lennart97 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. In the past I’ve been surprised which moves become controversial, I have been accused of bad faith over moves (even though I discussed all the objected few out of a huge number of moves), and that accusation helped to impose long-term sanctions against me. I already feel I’m taking a shortcut by citing the romanization guideline without making a detailed frequency-of-use study for each move, and relying on the community to reveal any problems. So thanks for the support, but I will think twice before I do that. —Michael Z. 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Totally understandable! Forget I said anything and keep up the good work. Lennart97 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. In the past I’ve been surprised which moves become controversial, I have been accused of bad faith over moves (even though I discussed all the objected few out of a huge number of moves), and that accusation helped to impose long-term sanctions against me. I already feel I’m taking a shortcut by citing the romanization guideline without making a detailed frequency-of-use study for each move, and relying on the community to reveal any problems. So thanks for the support, but I will think twice before I do that. —Michael Z. 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
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.