Talk:South Pier, Blackpool

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Pier, Blackpool article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amusement Parks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary disambiguation – 92.40.233.132 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That can't possibly be the primary topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina South Pier and South Parade Pier are the only two vaguely similar article names. [1] 92.40.233.132 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – even a Google search doesn't find this topic in first three pages of hits. It's a common ambiguous term, so should go to a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just Googled it and it was the second hit. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=south+pier www.southpierblackpool.co.uk 92.40.233.132 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I meant hits other than wikipedia and its mirrors. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—primary topic baloney: we don't need it to determine that this would be a bad move. Do I need to spell out the reasons? Tony (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we invite this sort of titling issue and encourage the "universe doesn't exist... only en.wp titles exist" approach to unnecessary disambiguation while WP:DISAMBIGUATION says nothing about the existence of the non-wikipedia universe. Bytes would better expended at WT:disambiguation In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes WP:D says nothing about the existence of the non-wikipedia universe because it clearly explains that disambiguation pertains only to the WP universe, in the first sentence:
"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles."

--B2C 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old version was better

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic,making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article.

that was softened to " and so may refer to more than one article" here and then all reference to the existence of the non-wikipedia universe removed some time after. But even so, WP:AT makes no limit to the in-universe aspect.

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside which version is "better", both versions ignore the non-WP universe by limiting the scope to WP articles. --B2C 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only topics sufficiently notable to be actually covered on WP are relevant to WP titling. Less notable uses of the term, or non-encyclopedic uses, are irrelevant to WP titling. Current title is quintessential unnecessary disambiguation. --B2C 04:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per rules about disambiguation for geographic locations, including the place in the title is a good convention. "South" and "pier" are so common English words that their combination is not specific enough to establish a topic. (There are other articles within Wikipedia including those words, and many piers in the world that are at the south of something). Diego (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The related page Central Pier should also be disambiguated, BTW. Currently it points to Hong Kong, which is confusing if you're looking for Central Pier, Blackpool. Diego (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done 92.40.233.132 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's simply WP:LOCAL, exclusionist, unhelpful to the reader, and definitely not the way to go. A proper name cannot get much more generic than that. Naming such a local feature with such a non-specific name is pushing the boat out too far – heaven knows just how many south piers there may be out there. The Blackpool south pier may be somewhat notable, but I warrant it's not sufficiently famous in a worldly context to expect many people to know one is referring to the one in Blackpool with the simple 'South Pier' name is evoked. This is the sort of nonsense ad absurdum that could potentially make Wikipedia a laughing stock – "whaa? don't the peeps at Wikipedia know there are 12,832 'south piers' in the whole world that they would want to choose the one in a pommie seaside resort instead of the one in my city?" -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far too generic and unhelpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As long is this is the only topic with COMMONNAME South Pier to be sufficiently notable to have an article on WP, there is no more reason to have this article at South Pier, Blackpool than at South Pier (Blackpool), South Pier, Blackpool, England, South Pier (pier in Blackpool, England) or countless other reasonable forms of disambiguation of South Pier that would make this title more recognizable and "helpful" to those who are unfamiliar with this topic.
A topic's relative obscurity and how "generic" its name is are not factors in determining WP article titles, unless there is a conflict with other uses of that name on WP. We should not be disambiguating the most common name of a topic that is not ambiguous with any other use on WP. If we ignore this fundamental principle of WP titles, we are putting into question the majority of currently stable titles on WP! --B2C 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, please don't fill this RM with Comment in effect repeating the same point. Yes WP:D has been edited to exclude the non-wikipedia universe, and yes you already said this above. Now let the RM take its course, please. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:IAR, per above opposition. The piers of the South Street Seaport would be quite likely. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: use the name

Blackpool South Pier seems to be the name, per the Blackpool Attractions site that says "Blackpool South Pier History – The South pier is the newest of Blackpool's 3 piers, ..." or maybe South Pier Blackpool per this site. There are hundreds of thousands of hits on these. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the official postal address (from http://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder/) is simply South Pier Promenade, Blackpool, FY4 1BB. 92.40.233.132 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what, we should write them a letter? I don't understand how their address is relevant to what to the title the article. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (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.