Talk:Nick Kenny

Disambiguation

Disambiguation unwarranted, only two Nick Kenny's out there, when a third appears it may be worthwhile, not at this point though.Londo 06 10:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation says Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result. I hadn't heard of either of them, so I would say keeping the 'generic' version as a disambiguation would be preferred. The plain article name here already cops a few inbound links from articles having nothing to do with rugby, and even if they get fixed more still still appear as long as people see that blue link. Wongm (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been editing Nick Kenny (rugby league) - what happened here? Where's the page history gone? Did you cut and paste rather than move the page? You'd be better off reverting this to the disambig page now. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved (A) Nick Kenny to (B) Nick Kenny (rugby league). Then Londo06 copy and pasted (B) to (A). Wongm (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to do now then? Revert this page to the original Nick Kenny article via the logs and put a speedy on Nick Kenny (rugby league) or make this page the disambig page as you had set it up? Don't want to leave it as it is as there is now no history on the Nick Kenny article after that cut and paste. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Just a little annoyed that it was disambiguated. Sorry for the loss of the history, defo my bad there.Londo 06 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we need to fix it. There's now a page with a history (Nick Kenny (rugby league)) and a page without (Nick Kenny). It would make sense to return the one without to a disambig page and retain the one with a history. Or I could wipe this page, move Nick Kenny (rugby league) here and put a speedy on it. I just need to know which one to do rather than go ahead and one of you undo it again. Probably easier just to make this the disambig page and be done with it. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should put the 'plain' version (minus history) back to a disamb, then work out what to do, then we can delete the 'plain' version to make way for the rugby article if required. Wongm (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no clear primary topic right? Nick Kenny should just go to a disambig. page as per the norm. Easy.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made Nick Kenny a disambiguation again, and have applied User:Londo06 changes to the 'new' page to the 'original' one. I have done this to avoid having duplicated content, if we decided to move Nick Kenny (rugby league) back to here we just need [[Nick Kenny to be deleted. Wongm (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a reason to change Nick Kenny (rugby league) back to Nick Kenny. We should be right now. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is now is the way things usually work right? Seems fine to me.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard of the one Nick Kenny, but he doesn't fit into the Michael Jackson, Michael Owen mould for clear dominance for an article name. Saying that there is only two of them. Best that we don't go and wipe page histories though. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]