Talk:Craven (Bradford ward)

Which country? Pedron (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is in West Yorkshire, England. I have added this to give context to article. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Craven (Bradford ward) → Craven Ward — I moved each of these to the proposed names, but some people disagreed and they were moved back. However, I don't believe this is the best set of names. These documents (list of candidates in the 2010 local elections, list of polling stations in 2011, Shipley area calendar, Shipley newsletter, plus these guides from the local newspaper - Ilkley, Shipley, Bingley, Bradford) demonstrate that "X Ward" is a fairly common way of referring to wards. In addition, the Craven (Bradford ward) article has its current name based on the possibility of other similarly-named wards but there are none as yet, apart from the possibility of confusion with neighbouring Craven District, so it would be acceptable to have something like Craven Ward, Bradford if necessary. Also the City (ward) article definitely presents a chance of confusion because City ward redirects to Ward (country subdivision). Green Giant (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tong (ward) → Tong Ward
• City (ward) → City Ward, Bradford
• Wharfedale (ward) → Wharfedale Ward
• Bingley (ward) → Bingley Ward
• Oppose the use of (ward) is the usual qualifier for articles that refer to wards there is no reason to use a capital for the word Ward as it is just a qualifier. See for example entries in Category:Wards of Bristol. Keith D (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no reason why non-standard qualifiers should be used. Equally there is no reason for xxxx, West Yorkshire to be replaced wholesale by xxxx, Bradford. These standards are well-established and I can see no logic in any city not following them. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How can these be non-standard when this is the style used by the local council when listing election candidates and polling stations? Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-standard in terms of Wiki naming conventions which does not use official names in its naming. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As is using the city name rather than the ceremonial county name for disambiguation puposes. This practice is not "wrong" - but is contrary to the way things are done in Wikipedia. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Craven (Bradford ward). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127030213/http://www.bcsp-web.org/mapguide_site/maingeo.cfm to http://www.bcsp-web.org/mapguide_site/maingeo.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)