Talk:Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency)

Requested move

 * 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: revert undiscussed move and return to stable title. Please note that this can be done immediately at Requested moves; no consensus established here on the relative merits of the stable title. Dekimasu よ! 03:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lanark and Hamilton East → Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency) – Was moved contrary to Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). Moving editor was advised, but no response given. Have informed editors involved in project to advise. The correct article has been recreated. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator performed a cut-and-paste move to return it to its previous title -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As a long-term editor (even longer than me!), you should really know better than to recreate an article at the original title after a move has taken place – I have reinstated it as a redirect for now. No comment on the move request - I know it's in line with the naming convention, but I have a very low opinion of the convention (it was passed with just four editors in support) and I can't bring myself to support its implementation - I still can't see how unnecessary disambiguation is a good thing.  Number   5  7  14:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Number 57, the issue has been discussed at length, over many, many years. It has been agreed, and the convention has been made official, that we use the disambiguation in article titles. The move was made without discussion or consensus (which I believe to be against the rules), and I want it moved back. This article cannot stand alone as a "one off" without any good reason, can it ? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "against the rules" to move an article unless someone moves it to a title that a requested move has been held on and rejected. And for future reference, you could have simply moved it back yourself if you hadn't decided to turn the redirect into an article! To be clear, I'm not going to oppose the move request because it is in line with a guideline, but I can't actively support something that runs so contrary to common sense. Number   5  7  17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there's a way I can move this back but I'll have to chin-stroke over it doktorb wordsdeeds 16:13, 24 October 2014 (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.