Talk:Adulyadej
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Neve-selbert in topic Requested move 9 December 2016
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Bhumibol Adulyadej Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej |
Requested move 9 December 2016
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Withdraw as nominator, one shall try and be WP:BOLD. Seems rather noncontroversial, given the lack of feedback.--Nevé–selbert 22:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Adulyadej → ? – Redirect Adulyadej to Bhumibol Adulyadej. The late King is most likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at hand here, and almost certainly eclipses his father in long-term significance to justify a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. "Adulyadej" AND "Bhumibol" renders about 68,600 results per Google Books; that number reduces drastically to 4,390 results for "Adulyadej" -"Bhumibol". When one factors alternative spellings for his first name, the results were even fewer. The majority of news, academic sources attribute "Adulyadej" to Bhumibol, and not his father. --Nevé–selbert 23:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: "Adulyadej" is not a surname, so the target should most definitely not be Adulyadej (surname); I've corrected the page. Actually, if it is agreed that the late king is the primary topic, this would be a case of WP:2DABS and a disambiguation page wouldn't be necessary. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Duly noted.--Nevé–selbert 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Paul 012: Would it be alright if I just went WP:BOLD and redirected Adulyadej to Bhumibol Adulyadej myself, thus closing this request?--Nevé–selbert 15:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've no problem with that. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.