Talk:Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 4 June 2016[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 the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Music1201 talk 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



– Why do we need a disambiguator in these article names? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For consistency with other articles about UK Parliament constituencies, all of which have the disambiguator. Also, there is for example no such entity as Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities - the combination only has relevance in relation to Parliamentary representation.George Burgess (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) which states "United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (current or defunct) should have a uniform suffix of "(UK Parliament constituency)" or "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" as appropriate, whether or not this is required for disambiguation" AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as has already been noted by other users all United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies are disambiguated in a uniform manner for the sake of consistency. Ebonelm (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the guideline quoted by opposers above was enacted after an RFC with low participation that was closed by an editor with a WP:COI. In that proposal, concerns about WP:AT compliance, most notably WP:PRECISION, were brought up and ignored by the supporters. A review of that guideline is necessary. For now, I cannot oppose this RM. SSTflyer 01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That guideline is contra to all standard titling practice on Wikipedia and the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 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.