- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Early close as uncontroversial technical request. (non-admin closure) Moscow Mule (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
William Ham (soldier) → William Ham – As far as I can tell, at the time of this writing, Wikipedia does not have any other articles called William Ham. If there (at least at the time of this writing) is no other article called William Ham, why disambiguate this article's title as William Ham (soldier) instead of just naming it William Ham? Heart of Destruction (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think it adds a bit of context to it, I personally would have liked it to be William Ham (New Zealand Soldier). Not much of a concern tho it doesn't bother me. Either works. .nzWoolyys (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support unnecessary disambiguation Traumnovelle (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, Ortizesp and Traumnovelle. Since William Ham is currently a redlink, this qualifies as an uncontroversial technical request. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- sweet. i think changing it is the best outcome, makes perfect sense since redlink. .nzWoolyys (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
