Talk:Spits (newspaper)

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Awful article. No real relevance. ^{(This comment was added by Irishjp on 5 July 2007 at 15:10)} ‎

If you asm me, this article should be renamed: Sp!ts

Lotje (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2023

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn/procedural close. This is TOTALLY a WP:IAR close since I'm involved: the nominator decided to take a different direction with the nomination, and no one else supported the initial nomination besides the nominator, so after closing this discussion, I will start another discussion with the nominator's new proposal. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spits (newspaper) → Spits – ~~No other articles on Wikipedia called "Spits".~~ (struck by nom on 17:17 18/4/23, see comment below.) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and retarget Spits to Spit (a disambiguation page) since there are multiple subjects there which could be referred to in the plural sense. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A defunct Dutch newspaper is not primary topic over spits of land, etc. ..and retarget Spits to Spit (a disambiguation page) since there are multiple subjects there which could be referred to in the plural sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Tim "No other articles on Wikipedia called X" is contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we disambiguate by mention not titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "Spits" already redirects here. Your problem is with the redirect, not the move. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Sp!ts - as that's the way the masthead was stylised. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 April 2023

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: withdrawn, I guess, is the best way of putting this close. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spits (newspaper) → Sp!ts – as that's the way the masthead was stylised. (This is the rationale by Tim O'Doherty; I'm neutral.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi, Necrothesp, and Tim O'Doherty: Ping participants of previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I support it, but I don't have a vote because you've proposed it on my behalf. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MOS:TMRULES: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") ...". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per wp:TMRULES—blindlynx 00:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:TMRULES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:TMRULES. Why is this defunct Dutch newspaper suddenly focus of such interest? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - I don't agree with the proposer in that they took my comment and used it to open a new RfC, which wasn't my intention. If we had kept going with the original RfC, people may have decided to move it to Sp!ts, but that's obviously not the case anymore. So, @Steel1943:, I suggest you withdraw this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: I disagree with "If we had kept going with the original RfC, people may have decided to move it to Sp!ts..." because you decided to withdraw your entire nomination statement, change where you wanted the article to go, and the new title has issues exclusive from the original proposal to move the article to Spits; Spits has plural issues, and Sp!ts has MOS:TMRULES issues. (In fact, saying this now, I oppose this move myself, meaning every participant in the previous discussion [besides you, the previous discussion's nominator] opposes both proposals.) Either way, I'll honor the request to close this. Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.