Talk:Port Dunford
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Somalia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The contents of the Port Dunford page were merged into Burgabo on 21 July 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
"Port Dunford" is a (common) misspelling of Port Durnford which itself is a deprecated name for Burgabo. Should this article be merged into that one? — AjaxSmack 21:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Port Durnford appears to be simply a disambiguation page serving a useful purpose. Port Dunford does seem to duplicate some of the information here, but there are precedents for articles covering the same town at different times: for instance, Constantinople and Istanbul. If there were to be a merge, then it would be more usual to merge the newer article into the older one with more history to it. Moonraker (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support merge as would improve both articles--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support merge to the direction of its current, rather than the transient historic name (was only called Port Durnford for 34 years). Much of the Port Dunford contains information from periods before and after than name. Also, Port Dunford doesn't have the notability of Constantinople and so I don't think that there is a need for more than one article. There is no policy argument for merging to the older article; rather, the title should reflect the most common name in modern English use, or the name people are most likely to expect. Specifically, when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support merge to the direction of its current, rather than the transient historic name (was only called Port Durnford for 34 years). Much of the Port Dunford contains information from periods before and after than name. Also, Port Dunford doesn't have the notability of Constantinople and so I don't think that there is a need for more than one article. There is no policy argument for merging to the older article; rather, the title should reflect the most common name in modern English use, or the name people are most likely to expect. Specifically, when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
