Talk:Ipa (spider)

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders 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.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Requested move 20 October 2018

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: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 07:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipa → Ipa (spider) – This is a surprising page for a reader looking for pages listed at IPA, which are more notable than this. I propose moving to Ipa (spider) and redirecting this page to IPA. Danski454 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were moved, it should be to Ipa (spider), as this is the convention for spider genera needing disambiguation. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to Ipa (spider), this article receives a consistent ~100 views per day and I highly doubt any of them were looking for a spider genus. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact only the page history from March 2017 onwards should be moved, since this term was a stable redirect for about 13 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xezbeth: possibly the best solution is to copy the existing content to a new article at "Ipa (spider)" (which should have been created in March 2017), attaching the {{Copied}} template, and revert this one to the redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Erh?? That would be a cut-and-paste move?? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, since as noted above, for most of its life this was a redirect, so we would only be reverting, and then copying the incorrectly added material since March 2017 to where it should have been, with appropriate use of the {{Copied}} template to track the recent page history. You could call it a split, if you prefer. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial for an admin to delete an article, restore part of it, move that part, then restore the remainder. No need to do any copying. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: ok, fine, then I suggest you do this now – there's very unlikely to be any dissent, as there are currently few spider editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the move request to Ipa (spider), revert if RMCD bot breaks. --Danski454 (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - hello, WP:DIFFCAPS my old friend. I hope to never see you again (and until this policy gets revoked, WP:IAR). --Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DIFFCAPS, disambiguating between a hyphen and a dash and a space, disambiguating with "The"... UGH. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and yes WP:DIFFCAPS needs fixing later. This is a prime example of why. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree that DIFFCAPS needs fixing, but part of a more general need for fixing our use of caps (we use them at times we shouldn't, and not when we should). Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 27 October 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.