Talk:Prince's Park, Liverpool

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Painting from 1849

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002717332/

©Geni 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2016

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: Move with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Park, Liverpool → Prince's Park, Liverpool – Named after one prince, per Sharples & Pollard 2004, p.276 (the page at Google Books) and this ref EP111 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not uncontroversial, as the name format has been disputed in the past per article's history, and "Princes Park" appears to be the common name. - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Please note that no verifiable sources were given, in either direction, with regard to the contested pagemove of 2008-09. Indeed, the article didn't have any references, then. One of the editors of the time noted in the edit summary "pending a source which says otherwise". I've just given two, here's another one: Pevsner, Nikolaus (1969). South Lancashire. pp. 35, 148, 233. ISBN 9780140710366. OCLC 59158504. Regards, EP111 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it needs to be discussed first on the article's talk age, as it's not uncontroversial. - BilCat (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per article content In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 13 October 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince's Park, Liverpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705175601/http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Parks_and_recreation/Parks_and_gardens/ to http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Parks_and_recreation/Parks_and_gardens/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]