This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 6 November 2015. The result of
the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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
This article has been marked as needing an
infobox.
Requested move 9 September 2018
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.
@
Hhkohh: How do you reconcile your position with our book-specific guideline,
WP:SUBTITLE, which states:
Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per
WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes.
Oppose and redirect target to
London's Burning (note: I have already done this, actually, since the target didn't exist). In the unusual case where the reader wants to see about a near-stub article on a topic of boderline notability, it will be listed on the disambig page there.
SnowFire (
talk)
15:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Because the resulting redirect would be
WP:ASTONISHing? Because this article should arguably be sent to Articles For Deletion anyway? Note, if your concern is that the subtitle is irrelevant, I have no complaints about a move to
London Burning (book). Strictly on the basis of "where should
London Burning go?", however, note that I said "unusual case". It seems unlikely many readers who type in "London Burning" are looking for this book, so a disambig page is a proper place to land. A "small details" argument might be okay if usage was split 50/50 between London Burning (the book) and London's Burning (the album, etc.), but not when the split is like 99/1 against. (I point you to the
pageview statistics, which show an amazing maximum of ONE pageview a day for the past month, with several days at 0.)
SnowFire (
talk)
19:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per SnowFire and
WP:NATURALDIS. I was a little bit surprised when I saw that redirect until I read your comment, as it wasn't there when I previously saw this request. Good find. --
Gonnym (
talk)
16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose cited guideline does not apply as disambiguation and long title are clearly beneficial to readers here, and in cases without (book) WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT works for short titles.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:24, 10 September 2018 (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.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 6 November 2015. The result of
the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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
This article has been marked as needing an
infobox.
Requested move 9 September 2018
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.
@
Hhkohh: How do you reconcile your position with our book-specific guideline,
WP:SUBTITLE, which states:
Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per
WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes.
Oppose and redirect target to
London's Burning (note: I have already done this, actually, since the target didn't exist). In the unusual case where the reader wants to see about a near-stub article on a topic of boderline notability, it will be listed on the disambig page there.
SnowFire (
talk)
15:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Because the resulting redirect would be
WP:ASTONISHing? Because this article should arguably be sent to Articles For Deletion anyway? Note, if your concern is that the subtitle is irrelevant, I have no complaints about a move to
London Burning (book). Strictly on the basis of "where should
London Burning go?", however, note that I said "unusual case". It seems unlikely many readers who type in "London Burning" are looking for this book, so a disambig page is a proper place to land. A "small details" argument might be okay if usage was split 50/50 between London Burning (the book) and London's Burning (the album, etc.), but not when the split is like 99/1 against. (I point you to the
pageview statistics, which show an amazing maximum of ONE pageview a day for the past month, with several days at 0.)
SnowFire (
talk)
19:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per SnowFire and
WP:NATURALDIS. I was a little bit surprised when I saw that redirect until I read your comment, as it wasn't there when I previously saw this request. Good find. --
Gonnym (
talk)
16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose cited guideline does not apply as disambiguation and long title are clearly beneficial to readers here, and in cases without (book) WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT works for short titles.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:24, 10 September 2018 (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.