Talk:Apollo Eleven (horse)

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing 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.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Sports Low‑importance

	Australia portal Apollo Eleven (horse) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 05 February 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Speedily moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Eleven → Apollo Eleven (horse) – I contend that the primary usage of "Apollo Eleven" is the spacemission Apollo 11, so this title should redirect there. The disambiguation page Apollo 11 (disambiguation) can be used to indicate this racehorse. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. First two Google Books pages; all spacemission, nothing about the horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per 70.50.148.248. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The space mission is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is going to WP:SNOW. Suggest the next editor passing through moves and closes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Red Slash 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.

Looks like this was already done, and in this case, I personally would have agreed, given that the horse was most likely named in honor of the spaceflight (permanent names are usually given to the horse when it begins racing at age two), but tacky to snow close it less than 8 hours after it went up, particularly when it went up in the wee hours of the USA when everyone was asleep, and with only four people commenting. Just saying; poor form. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This is so obvious that the discussion shouldn't have been opened in the first place. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]