Talk:Peddapalli

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Andhra Pradesh / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Requested move 15 May 2019

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: Not moved. There may be a case for a merge, per SmokeyJoe, but there is consensus not to move the page as proposed. — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– official references such as THIS Vin09 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relocation note: this request has been relocated from another talk page. Also, a 2nd page, the disambiguation page, has been included in this request, since it must also be moved to accomodate the 1st page move request. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:OFFICIAL and lack of WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC evidence. Let me know if that changes. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

commentThat was not the original one, please check it now. @Born2cycle:. I think the page is moved already to the one I asked, the request is completely different from the one I requested.Vin09 (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the request to a newer one, if the name can be disambiguated?--Vin09 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editors Vin09 and B2C: Vin09's original request is shown in this diff link, which resulted in a malformed request (because the subject page of that talk page is a redirect). As I noted before, that was the wrong talk page for the RM, which should have originally been placed here on this page or on the disambiguation page's talk page. I relocated Vin09's request to this page and added the move of the base name title to the disambiguation page, all of which has been restored. Vin09, if you want this done differently, then please explain exactly what you want to me on my talk page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as of now it's ok. I'll get back to you, if required.--Vin09 (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure, and thank you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if this is not moved to the current disambiguation title, would you be proposing that it be moved to Peddapalle, Peddapalli district (or Peddapalle, Peddapalle district)? Do all the titles ending in -i need to be changed to titles ending in -e? bd2412 T 14:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vin09: Please clarify re: bd2412. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts and BD2412:No only some title ends with i and some with e, based on the census 2011 names, we follow.--Vin09 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of now it's fine.--Vin09 (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you are withdrawing this renaming request? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging Peddapalli district and Peddapalli, Peddapalli district into one article, but this request should be rejected as insufficient. the very similar spellings of different places, and the brevity of the request, is confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.