Talk:Walbrook

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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.

Needs

A local map of the brook
pictures of the brook
further indications of why this little brook is NOTABLE enough to have a Wikipedia Page!

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "little brook" is pretty much why London (the original Roman city in any case) was built where it was. And anyway, the article is not just about the watercourse, but also the 1000-year old City ward. David (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose split

Move actioned. This has been open for over two years with no-one opposing. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggest the river content could be split off into a separate River Walbrook article. Although connected, the river and the ward are quite different subjects, both of significance to London. --Gapfall (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A separate article on the river would seem sensible...Jokulhlaup (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A separate article on the ward in the City of London would help in mentioning people from the ward, contrasted with the river itself.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I'd suggest doing it the other way around: keeping this article on the river, and splitting off Walbrook (ward) into a separate article. Robofish (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramblerdes (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Many wards and their namesakes - eg city gates - are handled in an inconsistent way. Better to split them in some way AlasdairDaw (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.