Talk:Aigburth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Aigburth → Aigbuth, Liverpool – {To fit in with other areas/towns in Liverpool}

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose - article should go at the simplest and shortest title name that creates no ambiguity (see WP:NAME). As long as there are no other articles for different Aigburths, adding Liverpool is an unnecessary disambiguation. Aquilina 09:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Aigbuth is also the name of a ship built in 1882, but currently there is no article about the ship ... I just think that adding "Liverpool" to the title will give a reader of Wikipedia more info as to what the article is about and is a search for "Liverpool" is performed more pages will be available to the reader (Just my thoughts !!!) David Humphreys 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if there were an article on the ship, as this is by far the more notable usage of the word the article on the district would remain here at "Aigburth". This way anyone who hears the name Aigburth can find the article at this page, without having to know first that it's part of Liverpool - as long as Liverpool is mentioned on the first line of the article, that will do!
(There's also a question of consistency here - this a rule followed for district articles throughout Wikipedia. And adding disambiguations to the title causes other problems - should they be separated by a comma, or hyphen, or brackets? Which places are big enough not to need disambiguating? Should we disambiguate by town, local authority, county or country, or a combination of these? Overall it opens up a can of worms which is best to avoid unless absolutely necessary!) Aquilina 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

When is "new"?[edit]

The cricket club is described as being "just outside the new district boundary". A specific date is needed there. Loganberry (Talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be removed; as of 2004 the cricket club lies in the Mossley Hill ward.MickyGrenade (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should stay. It was in Aigburth when it was built, not Mossley Hill, where it allegedly is now due to boundary changes (citation needed there). I live a mere 300 yards from it and I certainly live in Aigburth. If items were to be altered because of city council tampering with geography then most history books would need re-writing. Jimbo