Talk:2016 Colonial Pipeline leak

Requested move 20 September 2016

 * 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: WP:IAR Closing and moving. This could have been satisfied at WP:RMT I think. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Colonial Pipeline Leak → 2016 Colonial pipeline leak – Not an acronym; pipeline and leak are not proper nouns 69.58.42.90 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)  69.58.42.90 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

Requested move 1 November 2016

 * 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: Not moved. We can revisit the article naming in the future if it turns out that the second leak deserves more coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Colonial pipeline leak → September 2016 Colonial pipeline leak – They dun did it again as of October. The events described by this page are, therefore, not the 2016 Colonial Pipeline leak anymore. 204.29.102.205 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait and see. The later leak may or may not be covered in this article, and that affects what the title should be. Personally I think that covering the later leak is warranted, and that having two separate articles is unwarranted, so that they should both be covered here - then naming the article after only one leak would be a problem. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the second leak deserves coverage, then move to 2016 Colonial pipeline leaks. Can't imagine both needing separate articles. — Andy W. ( talk ) 16:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.