Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 4

Requested move

 * Not Moved. No consensus that disambiguation is required. Station1 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recovered Territories → Recovered Territories (Poland) &mdash; Title should reflect that applies only to Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 August 2009
 * No it shouldn't, unless the title is often used to refer to some other "recovered territories" as well. This is not the case here. The disambiguation guideline advises to only use bracketed disambiguators when they are needed to distinguish the article from other similarly named articles. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless there are other notable "Recovered Territories". See User:Jafeluv's comment above.  —   AjaxSmack   02:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the very same reasons as here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal is completely useless. Loosmark (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnessesary, IAW WP:DAB. — V = I * R  (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Are there any other Recovered Territories? To the best of my knowledge, Lviv and its vicinity (or Vilnius) are not called recovered territories of Ukraine or Lithuania. So, we do not need to rename it. Tymek (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no need.--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I truly do not understand the objection to this requested move. Throughout history lots of territories have been lost, recovered, lost, and recovered. Specifying that this article concerns Poland, and how Poland "recovered" these lost territories following World War II, seems to me a no brainer. If anything, a date should also be included with the addition of Poland so as to distinguish which time frame is being discussed. Throughout it's history Poland lost and regained territory. The suggested move simply requests to make the title more specific to who recovered the territories after the war. As for the argument..."avoid over-precision" ... it has to be countered by the main thrust of the Convention, which is... "that an article should be named as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope". Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! What a "surprise":):)--Jacurek (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)