Talk:Grade I and II* listed buildings in the London Borough of Bexley

Move discussion in progress edit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Grade I and II* listed buildings in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 25 May 2017 edit

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, without opposition. bd2412 T 22:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

– The London WikiProject naming conventions suggest that lists of things in boroughs should be named with the short form of the borough names (per WP:CONCISE), as in the current pages listed above. However, in the case of many boroughs (including Bexley, Lewisham, Greenwich, Ealing, Lambeth and others) this creates substantial ambiguity, as the boroughs have the same name as a locality within the borough. A talk page discussion on the matter indicated a possible consensus for altering this naming convention and the article titles listed above. This follows a recent CfD discussion which came to the same conclusion, and therefore moving these pages would be consistent with the corresponding categories. It should be noted that not all of these article titles create ambiguity (as in Havering, Barking and Dagenham etc.) but they are listed on the basis of consistency. I am open to the current page titles being maintained on that basis, but I feel that this consistency would be preferable. Some of the above articles are at the current title following previous Requested Moves which made the opposite change (see here for example), but the proposer of this requested move indicated in the above talk page discussion that they are in support of this action. I have listed here what I believe are all articles affected by this discussion, again for consistency, but I am open to omitting any exceptions, should they be identified. Jdcooper (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Support move. Thanks for taking on such a lengthy nomination, Jdcooper. Ham II (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: Despite having said previously that I couldn't find any potential exceptions to the convention being proposed here, I've just spotted some. The lists of mayors should use the mayors' official titles – "Mayor of..." rather than "mayors of the London Borough of..." An added complication is that Lewisham and Tower Hamlets have separate lists for plain old "mayors" and for "directly elected mayors" – for the latter see here and here. I'm not sure what the convention should be for the directly elected mayors – their titles are "Mayor of Lewisham" and "Mayor of Tower Hamlets", the same style as for the others – or whether the separate lists should even exist. I suggest leaving the lists of mayors out of the nomination altogether and starting a new nomination which looks at the pages in Category:Lists of mayors of places in England, its one subcategory Category:Lists of mayors of London boroughs and Category:Directly elected mayors of places in England. Apologies for not noticing this earlier. Ham II (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Cool, I'm happy for those articles to be considered separately. What should I do, cross them out? Or is it enough for us to have mentioned this issue in the discussion? Jdcooper (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I think that crossing them out and removing User:RMCD bot/subject notice from the pages should do the job. Ham II (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Err, I can't work out how to do the striking through, any chance you could give me a hand?! Jdcooper (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I've struck through the items on the list and removed the four sets of |current= and |new= parameters from {{Requested move/dated}}. This means that the parameters now jump from 66 to 71 but I assume that won't be a problem when it comes to making the move. I will now remove User:RMCD bot/subject notice from the articles, but keep the talk page notices as a record that they were part of the original nomination. Ham II (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Nice one, cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Has to be done. No reason to wait longer. Kleon3 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support move. Ditto above. Has to be done. Aspro (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support move. In many cases the Bourough shares a name with one of its suburbs. JulianL (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC) - Likewise, it clearly disambiguates the London boroughs from suburbs and cities around the Commonwealth, etc. JulianL (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2017 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.