Talk:Devonport, Plymouth

Requested move 26 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Devonport, Devon → Devonport, Plymouth – Per WP:UKPLACE - "For the minority of localities ... when unambiguously in a town/city unitary authority and the settlement itself (according to reliable, external sources) [[placename, town/city]] is used.".

In contrast to using Plymouth, "Devonport, Devon" seems both unhelpful (it ignores the Plymouth connection) and awkward (the repetition). That said, I'm not convinced that using Plymouth is right either. It now is a district of Plymouth, but its earlier history as a distinct entity was emphatically distinct from of Plymouth. Nilfanion (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, GregKaye ✍♪ 02:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given it was indeed an independent borough for most of its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite right. While the actual settlement has existed since c1700, Devonport was only a borough for 77 years (1837-1914), and 52% of its existence while it was called "Devonport" has been as part of Plymouth.The article benefit from a lot more info, but that's another matter

Note that I'd prefer Devonport, England to Devonport, Devon - it eliminates the repetition, without losing clarity, as with eg Lincoln.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support. If the disambiguation is to be changed then Plymouth (which itself doesn't require disambiguation) would be an adequate disambiguator. I would strongly oppose Devonport, England for a district of a city, it's not comparable to Lincoln, and WP:UKPLACE dictates: "For the minority of localities (ie hamlets or large neighbourhoods) meeting their own article notability, see WP:UKVILLAGES, when unambiguously in a town/city unitary authority and the settlement itself (according to reliable, external sources) [[placename, town/city]] is used. For example, within the borough of Milton Keynes, for localities in the defined new city area [[placename, Milton Keynes]] is used, as with Bradwell, Milton Keynes." Zarcadia (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support but also Devonport (Plymouth) might be better. I don't know, I'd trust a Brit on how they'd like this styled. Red Slash 08:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, we never use the parenthetical style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Good enough for me; thanks! Red Slash 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 Devonport, Plymouth. 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/20160826080744/http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_appraisal.pdf to http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_appraisal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Devonport, Plymouth. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121015044447/http%3A//www.plymouth.gov.uk/chapter_1.pdf to http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/chapter_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609172946/http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/newsreleases?newsid=151977 to http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/newsreleases?newsid=151977

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)