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 DrStrauss talk 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cage (enclosure) → Cage – Clear WP:primary topic in comparison with the items in Cage especially by changing to a broadconcept to cover all cages. Move 1. dab Cage -> Cage (disambiguation) 2. move this broadconcept Cage (enclosure) -> Cage. This will facilitate expansion. Just like box, this should be a core encyclopaedic article. Widefox; talk 20:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose move This article should not exist (as the current AfD indicates). The DAB is correct where it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So far no one else has supported deleting the article.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  User:Chris troutman see the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Cage (enclosure) was clear Keep with consensus to move to make the primary topic (which was not done until now). At the primary topic it will grow faster, and the dab can return to normal (as currently there's arguably WP:PTM entries). This was the logic then, and is the same now but in the mean time it languished as it was never actually moved. Widefox; talk 08:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Widefox: This is one of those cases where I'm right and everyone else is wrong. See WP:REALPROBLEM. If the aggregate fails to realize this, that's their fault. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  User:Chris troutman What's the actual problem? The previous AfD was closed Keep, and this AfD is majority Keep. We have history of people tortured in cages etc. Failing to see how this is different from Box and others. It's just a misplaced dab, solved by move and scope. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. It can be tough knowing the truth, when we go by WP:CONSENSUS. The 36 other language articles are also wrong? By translating the fr and de, we've got an OK article already. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is also quick. The move will enable it naturally. (apologies for RM during AfD, but it's easiest now to show the potential of the broad concept at the primary topic, else folk may think we already have an article on "cage".) Widefox; talk 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Widefox: Seriously, you need to read what I've written. The last editor I saw with this sort of WP:IDHT behavior ended up blocked. Claims about demolishing a house while it's being built don't apply to articles started 10+ years ago. I know you don't care. You've already decided what you're going to do. I can't help that. Do cages exist? Yes. Should we have an article on them? No. I don't see an encyclopedic entry, just a list of different types with some explanation. It's like the disambig page but with the ledes of each attached. Nobody is writing about cages as an entity. It's ok. I forgive your inability. Sometimes the most prolific editors are those that aren't encumbered with thinking outside their own viewpoints. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You wrote: "The last editor I saw with this sort of WP:IDHT behavior ended up blocked" and "You would do well not to tilt at windmills" They both sound threatening, please stop intimidating as a tactic when people disagree with you. --RAN (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  User talk:Chris troutman Other editors can see the quality of the arguments and form their own opinion. (As for the incivility, it's up to you how you interact with others when all they've done is disagreed with you. You will need to either strike the disruption accusation or provide evidence.) 36 other language projects disagree with you. Your claim "should not exist (as the current AfD indicates)" is factually incorrect, 1. it's not closed 2. the previous consensus was keep 3. the current tally is Keep anyhow. Widefox; talk 15:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  LOL, "the current AfD indicates" a WP:SNOW keep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. For the word "cage" it seems clear that the enclosure is the primary topic; it falls into the same class as Wikipedia's many other articles about common physical objects like boat, handle, seesaw, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The actual physical object should come first over individual people, companies, etc._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Clear primary topic by historical importance, and in fact, one of the more important topics in human history. bd2412 T 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Stark, raving obvious WP:PRIMARY topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Best of all possible choice. --RAN (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Clearly the primary topic. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support it's a primary thing, like rope or chair. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.