text:
Blitz!

Blitz! is a musical by Lionel Bart. The musical, described by Steven Suskin as "massive", was set in the East End of London during the Blitz (the aerial bombings during World War II). The story drew on Bart's childhood memories of London's Jewish East End during the Blitz and, like most musicals, centred on a romance between a young couple, in this case a Jewish woman and a Cockney man, although the largest role and main point-of-view character is that of Mrs Blitztein, the young woman's mother. Steven Suskin describes it as "Abie's Irish Rose set against the burning of Atlanta." Bart himself described the play as "…three human stories inside an epic canvas; the major human conflict – the major plot – personifies the spirit of London and how that spirit developed during the period of the piece."

Production history
Blitz! opened in London on 8 May 1962 at the Adelphi Theatre, while Bart's enormous West End success Oliver! was still running at the New Theatre, and after a successful pre-West End run at the Palace Theatre in Tottenham; at that time Oliver! had not yet been produced on Broadway. Blitz ran for 568 performances. It never ran on Broadway: between its scale and the fact that New Yorkers could hardly be expected to share Londoners' nostalgia for the period, it proved "unexportable". Bart wrote the music and lyrics, and had directed the original London production himself; Joan Maitland contributed to the libretto. Sean Kenny designed the elaborate sets, which included representations of Victoria Station, Petticoat Lane, and the Bank underground station, not to mention London on fire during an air raid. Four revolving house units and an enormous, mobile bridge, carried on two shifting towers, made it, at the time, the most expensive West End musical ever produced. Noël Coward called it "twice as loud and twice as long as the real thing."

The song "The Day After Tomorrow" was specially written by Bart for Vera Lynn. Lynn had been a star at the time of the German bombing attacks; in the play, the characters listen to Lynn sing it on the radio while they shelter underground. Lynn did not actually appear onstage during the production, but she recorded the song for it, and the production used her recording on the "radio". The play also makes use of a recording of a Winston Churchill radio speech.

The role of Mrs Blitztein was played by Amelia Bayntun in the original cast; it was her only role in a stage musical. The cast included a large number of children. There is a scene in which the children are to be evacuated from London; they cheerfully sing "We’re Going To The Country", while their mothers try to put on a cheerful face. The children's chorus "Mums and Dads" was a "showstopper" that drew much radio play.

The musical was never seen for many years, largely because the original scores went missing during Bart's turbulent years. It was reassembled in Australia by 19-year-old Andrew Jarrett, a Bart devotee, with orchestrations by Kevin Hocking, Jack Westmore and Stephen Smith. So impressed was Bart, that he came out of obscurity and travelled to Australia for Jarrett's triumphant production in 1985. The Royal Shakespeare Company's intended 1990 revival (for the fiftieth anniversary of the Blitz) never happened, although the National Youth Theatre did revive it in London's West End at the Playhouse Theatre in September 1990, with Jarrett imported as music director. This production was directed by Edward Wilson and choreographed by David Toguri, with the role of Mrs Blitzstein played by Jessica Stephenson (now Jessica Hynes, an established UK screen actor). According to the review in The Guardian, "Edward Wilson's production for the NYT is necessarily more modest and contains some beautiful, slate-grey designs from Brian Lee: his backdrop of a soaring-arched Victorian railway terminus is stunning. David Toguri's musical staging shows his customary flair, camouflaging the cast's vocal weaknesses by bringing out their physical athleticism. And Jessica Stevenson as the mob-capped Mrs Blitzstein admirably conveys truculent working-class defiance." Benedict Nightingale wrote in his review: "But the strongest performance comes from Jessica Stevenson as a Jewish matriarch able to sing a silly song about baking cakes being the answer to all ills, yet remain quietly dignified throughout. Here is an apprentice actress to encourage." This production became the basis for a touring Northern Stage Company revival starring Diane Langton as Mrs Blitztein.

A revival production of Blitz was put on at the Queens Theatre in Hornchurch in 2000 including members of the Queens Theatre's own youth groups playing many characters alongside the resident cast.

Plot
The story focuses on two families, the Jewish Blitzteins and the Cockney Lockes. Mrs Blitztein and Alfie Locke have adjacent stalls on Petticoat Lane: she sells herring, he sells fruit; they do not like each other. Their children, Georgie Locke and Carol Blitztein, are in love with one another.

Act 1
The action opens on Bank underground station where the residents of Petticoat Lane are sheltering from yet another air raid ("Our Hotel"). Amongst them are the two prominent families of the street, the Blitzteins, led by their patriarchal mother, and the Lockes, led by father Alfred. The two welcome home their respective sons Georgie Locke and Harry Blitztein who are home on embarkation leave for a week before shipping out to fight in the army. Harry has a new (older) girlfriend in tow, Joyce, who is not only not Jewish but married, much to his mother's horror. Georgie, meanwhile, has caught sight of Mrs Blitztein's daughter Carol, who has grown into a beautiful young woman during his absence and is instantly smitten.

Carol likewise is rather struck by the young soldier and they quickly hit it off, before their parents interfere, resulting in their usual round of bickering which never involves them directly speaking to each other but rather through other people ("Tell Him, Tell Her"). As the argument settles down, Georgie pulls Harry to one side to inform him that he is in love with Carol. Whilst Harry is not against such a relationship, he advises against it as he knows there could be trouble ("I Wanna Whisper Something"). The wireless is put on so the residents can listen to the news, which includes a speech by Winston Churchill, and a song by Vera Lynn ("The Day After Tomorrow"). Ernie Nearmiss, Alf's best friend and fellow air raid warden, arrives to inform those in the shelter that the Blackwell's house has been destroyed by a bomb and that Mr and Mrs Blackwell were still inside at the time, having refused to go down to the shelter.

Their son Tommy, who is in the shelter with the Blitzteins, is thankfully asleep and doesn't hear, but Mrs Blitztein decides that she will send Tommy with her own son Siddy into the country for safety. Mrs Blitztein then sings Siddy to sleep ("Our Hotel Lullaby"). The next day, the children of the street, apart from Georgie's sister Franie, are assembled to be evacuated and are waved goodbye by their mothers ("We're Going to The Country"). No sooner have the children gone than the bombings get worse; the firemen and air raid patrol are kept very busy and every morning the residents of Petticoat Lane emerge from the shelter not knowing what to expect but determined not to let it get them down ("Another Morning"). On this particular day, they emerge to find the gas mains has been hit and they are not allowed into their homes. Princelet Street has also been completely destroyed leaving several families homeless, including the Murphys and Sens. Alf takes the Murphys in whilst Mrs Blitztein accommodates the Sens. Mrs Blitztein is very frustrated and begins to have a long rant about Hitler, soon joined by the others ("Who's This Geezer Hitler?"). Harry re-appears after a week's disappearance and he is immediately put to work by his mother as punishment for not telling her where he was.

Carol and Georgie manage to get a minute to themselves and it is revealed that they have been spending a lot of time together over the last week. Georgie, prior to leaving for duty the next day, asks Carol if she'll wait for him, but before she can answer their parents appear once again. Mrs Blitztein is in full flow about her children and how they have disappointed her – Carol by breaking off her relationship with a Jewish boy because of Georgie, and now Harry for having relations with a married woman ("Be What You Wanna Be"). An official appears on the scene to conduct a census of all the people in the area who have foreign-sounding names to find out how many there are and how long they've been in the area. Whilst this is going on, Alf and Ernie engage in a patriotic rant ("As Long As This Is England"). That night, Carol and Georgie sneak out together to spend one last night together before Georgie goes abroad.

Their parents look for them but in vain. Carol and Georgie have a laugh at both their parents and their stubborn ways, and reflect on how the fact they are from such different backgrounds actually make them more suited ("Opposites"). They are interrupted by the air raid siren but, rather than go down to the shelter, they take cover in a doorway ("Magic Doorway"). Mrs Blitztein, searching for Harry, discovers them and is not less than impressed. Georgie volunteers to pay Joyce a visit and see if Harry is there. Carol meanwhile goes to find Harry herself, leaving Mrs Blitztein alone with her cake tin ("Bake a Cake"). She then overhears Buddyboy and Bird in the process of stealing lead pipes and is shocked to discover Harry amongst them. Harry announces to his mother he is not going back to the army as he's had enough. Mrs Blitztein is about to go after him when a bomb goes off nearby, followed by a scream from Carol.

The next day at Victoria Station, Georgie is waiting for Carol to see him off and for Harry to report for duty. When Harry doesn't show, Elsie, his former girlfriend who is still rather taken with him, tries to buy him time by distracting the Sergeant Major ("Leave It To The Ladies"). Mrs Blitztein arrives after having been at the hospital with Carol all night and is upset that Harry has not turned up. She informs Georgie that Carol was unable to come and see him off. Georgie informs Mrs Blitztein of his love for Carol and his intention to marry her when he returns, and is surprised when she agrees and seems more gentle towards him than before. The soldiers depart and Mrs Blitztein is left alone.

Act 2
Act Two opens six months later with Carol (now blind after the bomb blast) alone on Petticoat Lane, thinking of Georgie, who she has not seen at all in that time ("Far Away"). The Sunday market is slowly beginning to set up and people are discussing Carol and how the bombing seems to have calmed down at last. Alf is pleased as he's had a letter from Georgie to say he's coming home for good after losing a kidney, and, even better, he doesn't want Carol or her mother to know he's coming, which Alf believes means he's going to finish with Carol.

The market is soon in full swing ("Petticoat Lane") and the children return from the country ("We've Been To See The Country"). The market starts its usual business, with Elsie commenting on the variety of people one meets at the Petticoat Lane market ("Down The Lane"). Carol, who is helping out on her Mum's pickled herring stall, asks Mrs Blitztein if what Franie has told her about Georgie coming home is true. Mrs Blitztein is forced to admit it is. Carol is confused as to why Georgie did not tell her he was coming home and worries that he has gone off her because she is blind. Mrs Blitztein tries to reassure her daughter but is secretly thinking the same thing. The Military Police arrive to enquire about Harry's whereabouts as he is still on the run from the army. They are followed by Joyce who has not seen Harry herself in a long time. Mrs Blitztein is in despair – her daughter is blind and unhappy and her son is a crook on the run. In a moment of desperation, she offers up a prayer to her late husband Jack, pleading for guidance ("So Tell Me Jack").

That evening, the adults are assembling in the pub, leaving the children outside to amuse themselves with a game of Mums and Dads ("Mums and Dads"). After the other children are scared off by Tommy Blackwell and his horror book, Georgie emerges from the pub very drunk and depressed. Feeling a failure as a soldier, a son and a boyfriend, he is drowning his sorrows. He is approached by Harry, who reveals that he has spent the last six months working on the black market and hiding from the military but has come back to see Carol having only just heard about what happened in the explosion. Georgie confesses that he too is yet to see Carol and it's clear that whilst he wants to see her, he's too scared to do so. He makes out that Harry had the right idea running away, missing out on the fighting and death. Harry, on the other hand, seems to be fed up with life on the run and is clearly beginning to wish he had just faced his duty. The two agree to meet up later in the evening due to the area where they are being too public.

Georgie, now alone, goes into a drunken rant ("Who Wants To Settle Down"). Mrs Blitztein is next to discover him and she welcomes him home while trying to sound him out about Carol. Georgie admits the army was too much for him as all the killing and violence has altered his view on life and Carol probably wouldn't like the new him. Mrs Blitztein rubbishes the whole thing, telling Georgie that everyone has had to put up with the same thing at home and it hasn't changed any of them. She tells Georgie that she's very proud of him for going to fight for them and facing up to his responsibilities, unlike Harry of whom she is very ashamed. She admits she misjudged Georgie because of her dislike of his father but tells him that she would be proud to have Georgie in her family. Georgie admits he still loves Carol as much as he ever did, if not more, but he doesn't think he's good enough for her. Mrs Blitztein informs him that in Carol's eyes no one else apart from Georgie would be good enough. She goes to fetch Carol, whilst Georgie is reunited with his father and Franie.

Carol is brought to Georgie and the two enjoy an emotional reunion, during which Georgie proposes ("Is This Gonna Be A Wedding!"). Whilst preparations are made, Harry encounters Mrs Smith, who informs him of the impending marriage. Harry then breaks off his agreement with Buddyboy and Bird. At the wedding ("Is This Gonna Be a Wedding! (Reprise)"), Alf is still not happy about his son marrying a Blitztein but resigns himself to it, although not without a few snide remarks, particularly towards Mrs Blitztein. Georgie and Carol share their first dance ("Far Away (Waltz Reprise)"). Harry then appears to congratulate Georgie and Carol and announce he is going to fulfil his rightful duty by returning to the army ("Duty Calls"). The wedding party depart and Mrs Blitztein is left alone when a bomb hits. She is rescued from the rubble by Alf but neither are very gracious either in thanking or receiving that thanks and they leave still arguing, although in a huge step forward they are conversing directly rather than through other people. The crowd once again come together in union ("Who's This Geezer Hitler? – Reprise").

Characters

 * Mrs Blitztein – a typical Jewish matriarch and self-confessed "Queen of Petticoat Lane". She has spent her entire life trying to bring up her seven children in the proper Jewish way and is very disappointed that they have all in their own way rebelled. Her rival on the street is fruit and vegetable seller Alf Locke with whom she has an explosive relationship: neither can ever resist making snide comments to the other when they get the chance.
 * Carol Blitztein – Mrs Blitztein's youngest daughter. She clearly loves her mother very much but is not willing to let her run her life. She is in a sort of relationship with a Jewish boy early in the show but she breaks it off when she falls in love with Georgie Locke.
 * Harry Blitztein – the eldest son of Mrs Blitztein. He, like all his siblings, adores his mum but also finds her a pain and is not above rebellion even to the point of having Georgie Locke as his best friend. Harry is a typical Jack-the-Lad type and a huge hit with ladies, even the married ones.
 * Alf Locke – owns the fruit and vegetable stall at the market and is Mrs Blitztein's nemesis. A World War I veteran, he is now Chief ARP Warden and, along with his mate Ernie Nearmiss, he takes the job very seriously. He is father to Georgie and Franie who he tries to keep on a tight leash with little success.
 * Georgie Locke – eldest child and only son of Alf. Georgie is very different from his father, quiet and shy around people especially women.  He joined the army at the start of the war and during basic training he made Lance Corporal.
 * Ernie Nearmiss – Alf's best mate and fellow Warden. He takes the job very seriously and he has a high level of self-importance as result. If he hears about any trouble nearby that requires ARP attention he will head off in a flash to investigate and take charge.
 * Elsie – Mrs Blitztein's lodger and Harry's on/off girlfriend. Like Harry, she is very popular with the opposite sex and has clearly had a string of boyfriends. When the Blackwells are killed in an air raid, Elsie seems to take on guardianship of their son Tommy.

Original cast

 * Mrs Blitztein – Amelia Bayntun
 * Carol Blitztein – Grazina Frame
 * Harry Blitztein – Tom Kempinski
 * Siddy Blitztein – Kaplan Kaye
 * Rachel Blitztein – Rose Hiller
 * Cissy Blitztein – Julie Cohen
 * Alfred ("Alfie") Locke – Bob Grant
 * Georgie Locke – Graham James
 * Frances Locke – Deborah Cranston
 * Ernie Nearmiss – Edward Caddick
 * Elsie – Toni Palmer
 * The voice of Vera Lynn – Vera Lynn

 * Impresario – Donald Albery,
 * Director – Lionel Bart
 * Designer – Sean Kenny
 * Costume designer – Bernard Sarron
 * Lighting designer – Richard Pilbrow
 * Musical director – Marcus Dods
 * General manager – Anne Jenkins
 * Stage manager – George Rowbottom

Songs
Parenthetical names are individuals who sung the roles in the original cast, rather than character names.

Act 1

 * Our Hotel – Mrs. Blitztein & The Company
 * Tell Him-Tell Her – The Company
 * I Want To Whisper Something – Georgie Locke & Harry Blitztien
 * The Day After Tomorrow – Vera Lynn & Company
 * Our Hotel Lullaby – Mrs Blitztein
 * We're Going To The Country – The Evacuees & Mums
 * Another Morning – Alfie Locke, Ernie Nearmiss & The Company
 * Who's This Geezer Hitler? – Mrs. Blitztein & The Company
 * Be What You Wanna Be – Mrs. Blitztein & The Company
 * As Long As This Is England – Alfie Locke, Ernie Nearmiss & Company
 * Opposites – Georgie Locke & Carol Blitztein
 * Magic Doorway – Georgie Locke & Carol Blitztien
 * Bake A Cake – Mrs. Blitzstein
 * Leave It To The Ladies – Elsie & The Ladies
 * The Day After Tomorrow (Reprise) – The Company

Act 2

 * Entr'acte – The Orchestra
 * Far Away – Carol Blitztein
 * Petticoat Lane (On A Saturday Ain't So Nice) – Mr & Mrs Josephs & Company
 * Down The Lane – Elsie & The Company
 * So Tell Me – Mrs. Blitztein
 * It's Raining, It's Pouring – The Kids
 * Mums And Dads – The Kids
 * Who Wants To Settle Down – Georgie Locke & Kids
 * Is This Gonna Be A Wedding! – Mrs. Blitztein & The Company
 * Is This Gonna Be A Wedding! (Reprise) – The Company
 * Far Away (Waltz Reprise) – Georgie Lock, Carol Blitztein & The Company
 * Duty Calls – Harry Blitztein & The Company
 * Who's This Geezer Hitler? (Reprise) – The Company

"Far Away" was later a number 24 UK hit for Shirley Bassey.

title: Blitz!


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Social Entrepreneur

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to social entrepreneurship. — J I P | Talk 16:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Young Social Entrepreneur
Seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. I requested its deletion before a lot of this additional information was added, at first it seemed like a person trying to be clever. Now I think it should be merged as FreelanceWizard said. - realwingus  07:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into social entrepreneurship. This appears to be a legitimate term in this area, specifically referring to -- you guessed it -- people under the usual ages for successful entrepreneurs. There are awards and societies for this, but it's basically just a type of social entrepreneur, and so doesn't deserve its own article. Some of what's in this article might do well over in the other article, maybe. On a side note, I'm still trying to figure out why social entrepreneur redirects where it does, so I'm going to fix that now. :) --FreelanceWizard 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge if nessesary DV8 2XL 13:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 7

Disambiguating (the verb) vs. disambiguation pages
A lot of the confusion in the topics above stems from the distinction between disambiguation pages (those with nothing but links) and article pages which contain disambiguation (such as otheruses). The recently-developed Manual of Style only applies to disambiguation pages, and the distinction needs to be clearer on this page. There's a third class of pages described here, in which a single page contains stub articles on several uses unrelated meanings of the same word, but current WP practice seems to have moved towards making those all separate stub articles; maybe it's time to reconsider that policy.
 * Many of these articles are merely colelctions of dicdefs. They may serve a good sources for wiktionary. Many of them exist from early days of wikipedia, when the policies were not crystallized yet. Now they are being gradually cleaned up: transwikified/stubbifiesd (at least I do this whenever I stumble upon and easy one). But there are some difficult cases, like bug (disambiguation), which require editors of truly encyclopedic expertise to handle. mikka (t) 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning to work on clarifying these distinctions (after the first-name-page uproar dies down), but now would welcome any thoughts on the subject.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like the First Name Dab uproar is very contentious, but managed to produce a lack of consensus and as such isn't going anywhere.
 * Perhaps the distinction is between Ambiguous Pages and Disambiguation Pages. My preference would be for there to be no Ambiguous Pages in Wikipedia, and anything linking to them needed to be dabbed. Josh Parris ✉ 23:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propose to archive
I'm proposing to archive the section "Name disambiguation policy" since it's clear that this proposal isn't going to garner consensus. Please advise if you object to this archiving. This does not resolve the problem of how to handle these first-name pages, although I'm not certain this page is any longer the right venue to resolve that. For the moment I'll leave the section "FND: an alternative guideline". —Wahoofive (talk) 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If this page is not the right venue, then what is? —Lowellian (talk) 15:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I also think it is too early to archive. You should wait until some period (say, a week) after discussion on related topics has completely died down. Also, why is there a need to archive now? Most of this disambiguation talk page right now is on this topic. It should be archived after the disambiguation talk page moves on to other topics, and archiving should start with the earliest topics first (there are currently some topics under discussion at the top of the page before the name disambiguation section). —Lowellian (talk) 09:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Templates for Disambiguation Notices - fold into article?
The discussion on the templates (see top of the talk page) is extremely useful - so useful, I think it ought to be included into the article. Any objections? Josh Parris ✉ 02:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. There are too many templates mentioned up there. Do we really need all those? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the following ought to be included:
 * Otheruses
 * Otheruses2
 * Otheruses3 to add one or two links
 * Otheruses-number for year pages
 * Otherplaces
 * Otherplaces2
 * Josh Parris ✉ 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm working on a draft for a major rewrite of this policy here. The intent of this rewrite is to make the text clearer, not to make any significant changes to the policy. Please comment on the article's talk page. (A side-by-side comparison can be seen here). This draft assumes that we'll come to some consensus eventually about the first-name-article issue; PLEASE don't rehash that issue there. Whatever conclusion we come to here will be reflected on that page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands
Problem whether to use Tsushima, or Tsushima (disambiguation) for disambiguation in Talk:Tsushima Islands. Mr Tan 05:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That debate has nothing to do with this page.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixing links on talk pages?
I've been fixing up a lot of dab and redirect pages lately. While I'm happy to chase down the "What links here" entries and fix them up, I often find links from talk pages, and I'm not quite sure what to do with them. On the one hand, fixing them to point to the right place seems to make sense, but I'm uneasy editing something written in the first person and signed. What's the right thing to do here? RoySmith 3 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can link to the full http link, that's a way out that won't show up in WhatLinksHere. Another way is to disambiguate when the intention is clear, and fall back to the first technique first. Josh Parris ✉ 4 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

 * Ignore them. (Also, an unrelated semantic issue: many redirects don't need to be fixed.) --Joy [shallot]   4 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
 * on that unrelated issue...true, but fixing them can, in the bigger picture, reduce the overall load on the servers, can it not? I might be misinformed. Courtland 18:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not an issue. Talk pages are for editors to discuss things, the average user won't read it and follow links that they expect to go to a specific place.  Neonumbers 5 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

 * The very least: if I'm moving a page or something similar to where the link will mean something else after I'm done, then I fix it. Cburnett July 5, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

 * I do tend to fix these (if there are not too many) because of the potential future action of deleting the original target article, which would leave a red-link on the talk page. Where I don't fix is on pages that are archives of official activities, such as the WP:VFD archive, where there is a note (sometimes) on the page indicating that the page should not be edited. Courtland 18:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Naming
Are there policies on the titles of disambiguation pages? I personally find it a little irritating when the regular article is a redirect to a disambiguation page (i.e. Yale). Shouldn't we just have the unambiguous page become the disambiguation page? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah - yes - that. See the above discussion one the "Disambiguated Primary topic" method of disambiguation.  It's a new addition (few months back now) that was added without discussion, as far as I am aware at least, on this talk page (the above discussion came after its addition).  I propose (again) we discuss the removal of it.  Neonumbers 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This actually appears to be yet another sort of disambiguation page, where the unqualified article redirects to the (disambiguation) article. It's clear to me that this does not fit any of the four forms listed on this project page, and so I'm going to fix it right now. The fourth form seems to refer to the ambiguous page redirecting to the primary topic, and then that having a link to the (disambiguation) page, if I'm not misunderstanding. For what it's worth I would vote against this new form of disambiguation. Deco 02:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about articles "a" and "the"
I recently did a bit of shifting around of article contents that has ended up with the creation of A Place in the Sun (disambiguation). I've included in this page a reference to Place in the sun, as well as the titles of the 1951 film and the British TV program. What I'm wondering is whether there is an element of the guideline that addresses when and how to disambiguate articles that are distinguished by the use of articles such as "a" and "the", as is the case here. I've expressed my own opinion in the form of the page I refer to, but don't really want to fly in the face of a consensus solution if one has been identified. As a related note, I'm of the opinion that this is a class of articles that do not really need a guideline to cover, but that they can/should be handled on a one-off basis as they arise; therefore, I'll happily bound on my way if there isn't a guideline. Thanks. Courtland 18:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know of no guideline. I think it's obvious, though that such titles are likely to be confused and so should be disambiguated.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

For review, First Love
Could you review First Love and let me know what Guidelines I've violated and need to fix (and please, don't say "all of them" :))? This is an unusual disambiguation page, which is explained in the talk-space for the page. Thanks.  Courtland 20:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment would be that you've done good, although there seem to be a couple of defintions that you didn't "create" articles for - how come? And why is it "Freaky" and Nabokov's Congeries? Josh Parris ✉ 23:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Freaky" vs. Nabokov's Congeries: gut feeling, but I did not consult general style guidelines (the grammarian ones, not Wikipedian), which I probably should now that you've brought it up. I've never been good at typography in this sense.
 * information : I whipped out a book I look at once a year and found my instincts to be right. Quotation marks are used for "titles of magazine articles, chapters of books, names of songs, titles of poems, and other titles," while italics (underlining in non-typographic settings) is used for "titles of books, magazines, operas, and many works of art long enough to appear in book form." Thus, the quotating of a music video title (or song, I'm not sure which) and italicizing the name of a book.  Hey!  My gut has a decent memory!  oh, considering I work on citation and fact checking too, this information is from the 1964 edition of Instant Spelling Dictionary Courtland 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "done good". I've been thinking, though, on a balance between usability and what I'm coming to call the "Wikipedia Principle of Information Conservation" (?wipicon?).  In more recent actions, for instance on DNA (disambiguation) (see talk space) and API (disambiguation) (see talk space), I've opted for maximum conservation by moving any red-links to the talk space with an explanation of why I did it.  If this were applied to the First Love article, then the dab-page would look really clean and the effort others put in doing the linkages in the first place would have a representation in the talk space.
 * information : I went ahead and practiced what I preached here .. the page looks much better now without the many red-links, which now reside in the talk-space. Courtland 02:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why didn't I create articles? umm, I know nothing about the topics. (nodding to myself) Yes, that's the reason (shoving the "you are lazy" sign back behind me out of sight).
 * Courtland 23:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Question about title preference
In the case where certain places are named after other places, the unambiguated article should refer to the originator, right? I have a question because the article at Montserrat is about the carribean island, and by the article's admission, the island is named after the mountain in Spain, whose article is at Montserrat (mountain). I have started a discussion at Talk:Montserrat. Please let me know if there is clear precedent here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The primary title should be for the most common use of the name, if it's clear what that is. Doesn't matter whether it's the oldest use.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that really the case/policy? Fight Club is the book, and Fight Club (film) is the movie, although the movie is certainly more popular than the book; the first seven links from a google search refer to the movie.  I'm fine with either, but I couldn't find a codified policy or precedent for this kind of thing.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of variation in application of this particular guideline, but (speaking as a relatively new arrival to this realm) I think the general feeling is one of "do no harm" meaning don't use a title that is obviously not as important/widely known/prevalently used as another available one. The bar should be higher for changing titles than for creating them.  The matter of popularity is difficult to gauge sometimes, which is why some folks resort to the "Google Test": the object with the most and highest hits in Google wins as the recipient of the default title.  I never do Google Tests myself for this particular purpose. Courtland 00:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Planets
Please see Talk:Planet for a discussion on the use of disambiguation pages as primary for planets. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Part I
I don't understand the 4th method of disambiguation (which I'm sure didn't exist a few months back). Is this meant to be a temporary measure until consensus on one, standing, clear primary topic is found? That's the impression I get. And, I always thought that the main page (e.g. "Mercury") was never meant to be a redirect to a disambiguation page. Can someone explain the purpose? Neonumbers 11:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the idea at all. The rationale is (I hope! :-) well explained on the proposal page; basically, the concept is to try and easily catch links which are made to disambiguation pages (i.e. someone makes a link and doesn't bother to check where it goes, to make sure it's to the right thing, and it's actually to a disambig page). Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It was added on May 17, 2005 by User:Josh Parris. It's confusing and should be removed. However, as I mentioned above, this whole section needs a rewrite. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The idea is due to User:Jnc (see User:Jnc/Disambiguation). --Smack (talk) 05:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, DPT disambiguation is not exactly what I proposed, but a variant of it (one I like, actually). My original proposal is sort of intermediate between the new #4, and the old #2 ("Equal"). Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine, but it shouldn't have been added without any discussion. Give me one reason I shouldn't remove it right now.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because there's nothing that says people have to use DPT, and it's only a very slight variation on #2 ("Equal"), in that other pages which want to refer to the main meaning have to do so explicitly (so that it's not like the existence of this option is causing bizarre linking on pages which refer to the disambiguated topic, linking that we'd have to go around and change if we eventually decide to get rid of it)? Because there are a significant number of people who like this (or something like it)? Yes, it would have been better to discuss it before it was added, but now that it's been there for a while, removing it without discussing it would be just like adding it with no discussion. If we do decide to get rid of it, it will be trivial to turn them all into #2 disambigs; just delete the redir to the primary meaning, and move the disambig page there instead; none of the pages than link to anything will have to be touched. Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)/19:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought there was some discussion, but it may not have taken place through officially approved channels. I'll ask Jnc. --Smack (talk) 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I never started a formal Wikipedia discussion about it because I didn't have the time/energy. A number of people have seen it and discussed it with me, and I guess someone decided to be bold. Noel (talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Boldness doesn't apply to changing policies or guidelines. Does it?—Wahoofive (talk) 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured that:
 * it was a minor extension to the policy;
 * it seemed like the right thing to do; and
 * someone would slap me down if it was inappropriate.
 * Time seems to have bourne me out. But I don't know how many people actually paid attention to what I did, either following, or getting upset by, the method.  But I agree, it is confusingly written.  Sorry.
 * It seems like there's a lot of emotion kicking around disambiguation right now. Josh Parris ✉ 07:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My very best (and somewhat confused) understanding of User:Jnc/Disambiguation is that its only purpose is to make maintaining the links to the page easier. There are two (former) types of dab: Equal and Primary Topic. If you have Primary Topic, then the links that go to that page may or may not be correctly addressed. To find out, you must go to the page itself, unless its title is really that self-explanatory. With equal, most pages will be incorrectly addressed. To find out, you probably have to visit the page in question and then decide whether or not to change it.

With this proposed, or rather, fourth method, the only difference is that you don't have to sift through the links manually. All it does is eliminates the correct links - a small matter for Equal disambiguation, in my opinion. For Primary Topic disambiguation, this will eliminate hassle only for those which you couldn't tell from the title - the proportion of which I don't know, having never worked in the area.

Dare I say that (imo) the cost caused by confusion and disuniformity (as a user) outweighs the benefits of lesser maintenance. Anyhow, as of yet, this is not a place to discuss the method's validity. It still wasn't discussed properly, and was a major change (not pointing at anyone, btw). I think a month is a short enough time to remove it until a discussion is held and concensus formed. Any chance of that?

And, more importantly, is my second attempt at understanding this right? Neonumbers 09:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, my understanding in summary is: separating the Ambiguous Page from the Disambiguation Page allows simple maintenance of inbound links.
 * Having said that, I've just come to the realisation that having the Disambiguation Page at the same place as the Ambiguous Page isn't a problem - as long as there is a Topic (disambiguation) page redirecting to Topic, then intentional links to the ambiguity of Topic can be distinguished. Josh Parris ✉ 01:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So does this method stay or go? Neonumbers 5 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

Discussion Part II
I propose that all Primary Topic disambiguation be discouraged. If an article name is ambiguous, there should be no article there.

Instead of putting an article at an ambiguous topic name, a disambiguation page should be created. And at the same time, a Topic (disambiguation) page should be created, redirecting to the Topic page. No article should intentionally link to Topic; if anyone wants to link to the ambiguous concept of Topic they'll link to Topic (disambiguation), which will redirect to Topic. Any inbound links to Topic are ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the advantage of this. I get the impression that your primary purpose is to distinguish legitimate links to dab pages (which would go to the page named Blah (disambiguation) from accidental links (which would go to Blah). But I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish the few legitimate links to a dab page. Do you? What am I missing? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It comes down to "I'm a bear of little brain". I don't like trying to remember/figure out all over again if a link to the dab page is meant to be there or not. I just want it to go away. No imbound links, no work for me to do. Simple. Josh Parris ✉ 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to cast aspersions on your brain size, Josh, but this is a pretty significant policy change just for your convenience. I'd like to hear from others that they'd also find it so much more convenient before I could support this.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It can be quite onerous to sort through links on long pages, but I think it's worth it to do this manually. I learned my lesson in this respect on First Love .. I NEVER thought there would be so many references to this title as different objects on different pages where everone assumed that their reference would be the one-and-only.  TLA's are also going to be nightmares, but worthy of manual treatment, I think.  In summary, and if I understand things rightly, I think that the proposal is noble but unnecessary and falls into that class of actions aimed to predict the direction of editing, which are generally not pursued in this environment.  A good case in point about that "descriptive rather than prescriptive" approach is the notion that we shouldn't add every possible article name to a dab-page that comes to mind when working on it, but restrict linkages to articles that actually exist in most cases (that First Love page needs some work from that point of view ...). Courtland 01:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Primary Topic disambiguation's a very good method, especially when there's a Primary Topic. If there is dispute over which, then obviously that's not what you'll be using. But in many cases, there won't be dispute. I mean, if someone should ever make a film called Basketball, then that won't force the sport onto a dabed page. Primary topic disambiguation makes thing simpler for each case that uses it. Maybe more complicated in the sense that there are more systems, I accept, but simpler by the case. I still like it, and I still don't like the Disambiguated Primary Topic idea. Neonumbers 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Neo, I think you missed the point of Josh's proposal. If I understand correctly, Josh is happy with Basketball, but doesn't want dab pages like Mercury to exist under the primary title; rather, the dab page should always be named with the (disambiguation) qualifier, and the primary name just be a redirect to the dab page. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Subsequently, he has suggested the reverse process, mandating a Mercury (disambiguation) redirect to the Mercury dab page. I don't have a problem with this — redirects are cheap — but I still want to hear from others before I'd support requiring it. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I re-read the first message... and I know I should really wait for Josh to clarify himself but the first sentence says that "all Primary Topic disambiguation be discouraged". That part if I interpret it correctly I'm definitely against.
 * But, true, the second part somehow came to me differently this time. So in Mercury's case, where dab page is at the Primary, then yes, I agree, there is some advantage in making a redirect at Mercury (disambiguation) and unlike Jnc's way, it doesn't interfere with the main system.  But only create this redirect if necessary.  I would suspect that almost all dab pages don't need it.  And this should only apply where there is no primary topic. Neonumbers 12:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up the disambiguation category (TLA)
I'm wondering if anyone has considered splitting Category:Disambiguation into a couple of subcategories based on template usage. I'm right now thinking in terms of the use of TLAdisambig versus disambig. Presently, the former template directs labeled articles to inclusion in Category:Disambiguation. Could we consider modification of this template to allow direction of labeled articles to a new sub-category, Category:TLA_Disambiguation? My thinking is that such a category would be an identifiable finite chunk of page organization. As I've not thought through the numerous pros and cons of this, it would be helpful for a pros/cons discussion to proceed from here on this page. Thanks. Courtland 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The existing Category:Disambiguation is so large as to be useless, so my instinct is to support this. But there are some scripts (such as Disambiguation pages with links which would need to be updated, so the ramifications might be larger than we think; maybe a mention on Village Pump would be indicated. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows
I came to this page looking for simple instructions on how to create a piped link but had to look at "edit page" to see the example. I don't think this is clear since the Mercury example contains piped links but then does not even explain how they work. Would anybody be mad if I changed the text on this page as follows (this is a rough draft just to show you the idea):

Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here: piped links, disambiguation links and disambiguation pages. In the first case, piped links are simply links which automatically redirect. In the second case, an article discussing one particular meaning of a term has a link at the top (or, rarely, at the bottom) pointing the user to another page with a similar title. Finally, a disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.

Then a brief description how to create a piped link, explainin where the pipe symbol is (over the slash usually?) and then walk people through how to do it using the Mercury example.

Please reply here or on my Talk page. Thanks!!! Laurap414 diligent semi-newbie Aug 12 1 pm CST (how do I insert the time?)
 * Now that you mention it, piping is the primary method of disambiguation used on Wikipedia. How about this revision of your opening sentence:
 * {| class="wikitable"

 * Three different methods of disambiguating are discussed here:
 * piped links are simply links which automatically redirect to a more specific page.
 * disambiguation links are links at the top of an article page offering the user the option to view a similarly-named article.
 * disambiguation pages contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages.
 * } —Wahoofive (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Topics in disambigs
I just came across ABB, a disambiguation which was changed to its current style by User:Joshbaumgartner. I was just wondering what the general opinion of it was. Should we encourage that form or make sure nobody uses it? violet/riga (t) 10:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a very bad page. Discourage. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreeing with Wahoofive ... I wouldn't encourage this style. The design is pretty clearly based on the "dab pages as launchpads for exploration" style, over which we don't seem to have a firm consensus, though. Courtland 01:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

For TLAs, at some length, I think topics would be helpful. Not sure if "ABB" is of sufficient lenght and the suggested style is the preferable. -- User:Docu

title: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 7


text:
User talk:Priestmark

This is a test. --Mark 08:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSC00104.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC00104.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You also need a license tag for Image:Signed apol.jpg. Last, I've deleted Image:DSC00104.JPG, Image:DSC00105.jpg, Image:DSC00106.jpg, and Image:DSC00122.jpg.  Next time, instead of uploading another image, just tell an admin (like myself) or just list them at Images and media for deletion to have them deleted, because the history still has the old image underneath.  If somebody wanted to, they could get the old images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Yulia Savicheva for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yulia Savicheva is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Yulia Savicheva until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eduemoni↑talk↓  02:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priestmark


text:
France family

The France family is known as the "first family" of NASCAR racing. NASCAR was founded by Bill France, Sr. in 1948 and to this day France family members own and operate NASCAR. Jim France, one of the sons of the founder, is the current chairman and CEO after Brian France's arrest on August 6, 2018 and subsequent leave from the position. The France family also controls International Speedway Corporation and International Motor Sports Association.

Notable family members

 * William Henry France (1874–1949) – father of co-founder of NASCAR
 * James Edmund France (1906–1920) – brother of co-founder of NASCAR
 * Bill France Sr. (1909–1992) – co-founder, CEO and chairman of NASCAR
 * Bill France Jr. (1933–2007) – CEO of NASCAR; chairman of ISC
 * Jim France (1944–) – CEO and chairman of NASCAR, executive vice president of NASCAR; CEO and chairman of ISC
 * Lesa Kennedy (1961–) – executive vice president of NASCAR; President and CEO of ISC
 * Brian France (1962–) – former CEO and chairman of NASCAR
 * JC France (1965–)
 * Ben Kennedy (1991–) – race car driver, general manager of the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series

title: France family


text:
Aberuthven

Aberuthven (Gaelic: Obar Ruadhainn) is a small village in Perth and Kinross, Scotland. It lies approximately 2+1/2 mi northeast of Auchterarder and 10 mi southwest of Perth at an elevation of 128 ft. It lies on the A824 road, formerly the A9, having been bypassed along with Auchterarder since 1983. The village is centred on the village hall, with a historic church just outside the village. The population has almost doubled in recent years.

History
In the 1880s the main industry in the village was cotton weaving; also it was also the site of cattle fairs, and much later, a gas works.

Church

The former parish church stands in a graveyard a little beyond the west end of the village. It was dedicated to St Cattán, and is of early Christian origin, said to be one of the earliest ecclesiastical foundations in Scotland. It originally fell under the control of Inchaffray Abbey.

The now roofless church is built of sandstone rubble, and may date from the 13th century. Two lancet windows with monolithic heads in the east gable, and an aumbry (partially buried by a rise in ground level) in the north wall, are the only surviving medieval architectural features. The west gable is crowned by a bellcote added in the 1720s. The west end of the building is taken up by two burial aisles (interiors inaccessible), while the neoclassical Montrose Mausoleum (1736–38), now free-standing but originally forming a "laird's aisle", abuts it on the south side. The mausoleum contains the remains of James Graham, 1st Duke of Montrose.

The chapel was in use until 1673. There are a number of 17th and 18th-century gravestones in the churchyard.

title: Aberuthven


text:
National Athletic Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities

The National Athletic Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (NAASCU) is an athletic association of colleges and universities in the Philippines. It was established in 2001.

NAASCU sports are men's, women's and junior's basketball, men's and women's volleyball, track and field, table tennis, chess, taekwondo, swimming, billiards, badminton, beach handball, street dance and cheerdance.

Member institutions

 * Notes

Former members
left in 2002 left in 2003 left in 2004 left in 2011 left in 2012 left in 2013 left in 2015 left in 2016 left in 2017 left in 2018 left in 2019
 * Our Lady of Lourdes Technological Institute (OLLTI Saints), Quezon City
 * Arellano University (AU Flaming Arrows/Chiefs), Manila
 * Angeles University Foundation (AUF Great Danes), Pampanga
 * Las Piñas College (LPC Blue Lions), Las Piñas
 * World Citi Colleges (WCC Vikings), Quezon City
 * San Sebastian College - Recoletos de Cavite (SSC-RC Baycats), Cavite
 * Informatics International University (IIU Icons), Quezon City
 * University of Manila (UM Hawks), Manila
 * STI College (STI Olympians), Manila
 * Trace College (TC Stallions), Los Baños, Laguna
 * Central Colleges of the Philippines (CCP Bobcats), Quezon City
 * Diliman College (Diliman College Senators/Blue Dragons), Quezon City
 * Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP Mighty Maroons), Manila
 * Santa Isabel College (Santa Isabel Isabelans), Taft Ave., Manila
 * Centro Escolar University (CEU Scorpions), Mendiola, Manila
 * Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST Red Fox), Sampaloc, Manila
 * Colegio De San Lorenzo (CDSL Griffins), Quezon City
 * Lyceum of Subic Bay (LSB Sharks), Olongapo
 * De Ocampo Memorial College (DOMC Cobras), Sta. Mesa, Manila
 * National Teachers College (NTC Bearers), Quiapo, Manila
 * Rizal Technological University (RTU Blue Thunder), Mandaluyong


text:
Talk:Khel Ratna Award

Semi Protect the article.
Current events attract vandals to this page. Srijan Suryansh talk (ping me if you have birthday on 27/7/3.)) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename this article as ' Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award'.
As we all educated folks know, Prime minister of India Narendra Modi renamed this ' Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award' as Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna award. This article's heading title also have to be change as ' Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award' and give due respect to Major dhyanchand, the wizard. Newton Euro (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This awards name is Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna award, why it's not renamed here yet. Newton Euro (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * @Newton Euro The articles are named according to the article titles policy. You can start a move request and discuss why the article should be moved to the new name. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2021

 * 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: moved. Per discussion consensus. (non-admin closure) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna → Khel Ratna Award – The name of the award has been officially changed to Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award so using its previous title makes no sense. But according to WP:NAMECHANGES, we should give weight to reliable sources. A simple google search of Khel Ratna Award (#) and Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award (#) shows same result, which satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. In future it can be renamed to Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, if it would be commonly used by reliable sources.  -ink&fables  «talk»  08:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * Support: A lot of news articles referred to the award as simply "Khel Ratna Award" even prior to the renaming. SignificantPBD (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: It will be fair, to change the name to Khel Ratna award. As khel ratna award has around 1,700,000 search results on google compared to "rajov gandhi khel ratna award" with much lower 7,26,000 resultsFollowbrocode (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: I support it, because it will be the right decession according to WP:COMMONNAMEWorldisorange (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait till the announcement: I would like this to be moved to the newer name, however, also would like to see how the Government of India refers to it once the official award announcement is done for the year 2021. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 15:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Full Support Appu (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Various searches yielded these results: "Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna" at ~38,900 ; "Khel Ratna" -"Rajiv Gandhi" at ~56,100 ; "Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award" at ~23,400 ; "Khel Ratna" at ~74,100. There seems to be very borderline majority when it comes to the usage. But as others noted, the RS is referring to the award as Khel Ratna. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A concern
I have noticed that the phrase "Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna" has been changed to "Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna" at the articles of Khel Ratna Awardees, who were awarded the Ratna before the renaming. I suggest that it should be changed back to Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, as they were awarded the "Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna" not the "Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna" (see inscription here).  Peter Ormond 💬  14:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, if they were awarded prior to the name change, they should have the name of the prior award. However, it may be easier to just clarify, using phrasing like "the Khel Ratna, (known at the time as the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna)" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Khel Ratna Award