Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1875

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 21 March 2018[edit]

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: consensus to retain the current title at this time, per the comments below and additional discussion at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Dekimasuよ! 05:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offences Against the Person Act 1875 → Offences against the Person Act 1875 – This page should be moved back to its original location for the same reasons that I gave in this edit when requesting that the article on the Offences against the Person Act 1861 should be moved back to its correct location. The only difference is that in this case, the short title is legally authorised by section 1 of the Offences against the Person Act 1875 itself, and not by the Short Titles Act 1896. James500 (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 18:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment. WikiProjects "Politics of the United Kingdom", "Law" and "British crime" have been notified of this debate. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 19:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- Alex^TW 05:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Oppose for the reasons given in this edit, replying to the edit cited above by nom. Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reasoning for this proposal is given in this edit, which is that both COMMONNAME and IAR require this move. James500 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are gently reminded to adhere to WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move, which lets us know that, "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." relister, Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 03:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unbolded the comment and removed all references to a recommendation. That brings the comment into line with what the information page essay or how to essay recommends. James500 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, James500! Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See here for logic ToastButterToast (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here for analysis of that logic. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

From the related current RM cited above: No one disputes the requestor's logic, when it comes to relevant legal documents; that simply is not connected to the capitalisation of a single letter in a Wikipedia article title, and if we start following this kind of logic, we complicate existing rules further. [1] Very well put, and equally applicable here. But perhaps best to discuss at that other RM. Andrewa (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2018 (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.