Talk:Rushcliffe
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rushcliffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 29 September 2018
[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 consensus to move. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Rushcliffe → Borough of Rushcliffe – Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME the district is usually called "Rushcliffe District"[1] or "Borough of Rushcliffe" in a generic context even though "Rushcliffe" is the preferred label by the OS, presumably when its clear from the context that you're referring to the district. The district is named after Rushcliffe Wapentake and this move is consistent with WP:UKDISTRICTS ("Non-metropolitan districts with local ambiguity...". Views [[2]] show that this gets less views than Rushcliffe (UK Parliament constituency) among others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. As with Broxtowe and some others proposed by the same user, this is not a case of a "district with local ambiguity". Those are the districts named after a single town although covering a much wider area; examples Lewes or Horsham. No-one would ever claim that Rushcliffe wapentake (or likewise Broxtowe) was a competitor with the current district for being the principal meaning of the name; and we already have a universal principle for constituency names including both current and former ones which removes that as a competitor. So the one word name is unchallenged as meaning the current authority that people living there relate to. Go on the streets of those towns/villages and ask people "do you live in Rushcliffe/Broxtowe?", I would guess over 80% of residents would say yes and they would be meaning the entity that sends them council tax bills, clears their rubbish, not the MP's seat and certainly not a near-mediaeval unit of doubtful significance. Despite the proposer, no evidence is given for NATURAL and COMMONNAME (the link given to an auto-populated web page shows simple "Rushcliffe" the opposite of what's claimed!): in my experience 'boroughs' of this kind are rarely thought of by most people in terms of that status, simply as their council area, the natural name for Broxtowe etc is the one word name that people locally will recognize. Sussexonian (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this case GeoNames just uses "Rushcliffe" (my mistake) but most often it uses "Foo District". Most people would only know of the district council which redirects to the district anyway. And even though constituencies include the "(UK Parliament constituency)", they can still be competitors, see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT however this is likely to reduce its claim. The WP article uses "Borough of Rushcliffe" in the infobox, the council also mentions the full name and also in legislation. If anything I would make it a universal principle that districts include their status in the name, in which case there would by you're logic be no way the district would be primary. However some district articles such as North Devon and Craven don't just include info on the district so maybe that wouldn't be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- "If anything I would make it a universal principle ..." yes but as you're not the king of wikipedia, that sort of change would require very significant discussion, logically on WT:UKGEO. But that would be a horrible policy that doesn't exist anywhere on WP: well I suppose the constituency standard is similar, but few other types of article have that universal description. Every civil parish? Distinguish ceremonial counties from administrative counties? We don't do it and I don't think it would gain support. It is accepted that districts require a descriptive noun when the name is ambiguous like Lewes, Horsham and many others as well as the Leeds-type cases; the sensible "(district)" has somehow been supplanted by the inaccurate uppercase "District" and I don't think that had the discussion it merited before it spread around the articles. Sussexonian (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- The universal principle for adding "(UK Parliament constituency)" to constituencies is more likely to go against policy than adding the status of the district. Generally Foo shouldn't redirect to Foo (qualifier) (or Foo, qualifier) see WP:PRECISE but its less clear cut with longer and shorter names such as "Foo" redirecting to "Foo District". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- "If anything I would make it a universal principle ..." yes but as you're not the king of wikipedia, that sort of change would require very significant discussion, logically on WT:UKGEO. But that would be a horrible policy that doesn't exist anywhere on WP: well I suppose the constituency standard is similar, but few other types of article have that universal description. Every civil parish? Distinguish ceremonial counties from administrative counties? We don't do it and I don't think it would gain support. It is accepted that districts require a descriptive noun when the name is ambiguous like Lewes, Horsham and many others as well as the Leeds-type cases; the sensible "(district)" has somehow been supplanted by the inaccurate uppercase "District" and I don't think that had the discussion it merited before it spread around the articles. Sussexonian (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this case GeoNames just uses "Rushcliffe" (my mistake) but most often it uses "Foo District". Most people would only know of the district council which redirects to the district anyway. And even though constituencies include the "(UK Parliament constituency)", they can still be competitors, see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT however this is likely to reduce its claim. The WP article uses "Borough of Rushcliffe" in the infobox, the council also mentions the full name and also in legislation. If anything I would make it a universal principle that districts include their status in the name, in which case there would by you're logic be no way the district would be primary. However some district articles such as North Devon and Craven don't just include info on the district so maybe that wouldn't be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.