Talk:St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Manly

	Australia portal St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Manly 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 Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Christianity: Reformed Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Reformed Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity.

Page move

St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Manly only ? Dave Rave (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer inclusion of the denomination in the article title myself, and agree that "Manly" rather than "Manly, Sydney" would suffice to distinguish it from the many St Andrew's Churches (and St Andrew's Presbyterian Churches) in Wikipedia. So, yes, from me! Kerry (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Rave and Kerry Raymond: Done. Moved from St Andrew's Church, Manly, Sydney to St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Manly. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why does that take two years ? Dave Rave (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Rave: Because there is no formal process that closes informal discussions. If you initiate an informal discussion, it's more or less up to you to wait for a while so people can have their say and if there is a clear consensus, implement it. Otherwise go to a formal RfC process (assuming you care enough about the issue). I often stumble on articles whose Talk pages have a suggestion, agreement and no subsequent action months/years later. I just "make it so" leaving a note on the Talk page as I do, which is exactly what Rangasyd (talk · contribs) just did. Kerry (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds fair, I waited, I deserved it Dave Rave (talk)