Talk:The Resurrection of Ra's al Ghul

Comics: DC Comics / Batman Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Batman work group.

Requested move 21 January 2016[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: No move. There's no agreement that the title needs further disambiguation, nor that the proposed version is preferable per Wikipedia's standard policy and practice. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Ra's al Ghul → Batman: The Resurrection of Ra's al Ghul – The current title is ambiguous, the new one is to help identify that it is a Batman comic book storyline. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as Ra's al-Ghul has been resurrected several times, so the title could conceivably refer to the fictional events / continuity reboots; instead of this comic title. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This is a fictional story, and thus should to titled as what the publisher has published.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the title matches the publication and it's use in reliable sources. There is no need for additional disambiguation. And even if there was, the title suggested would not be the way to go about it. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still say Rename to avoid ambiguous.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons listed by Tiggerjay. Dimadick (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (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.