Talk:Luddendenfoot

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Luddendenfoot is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Requested move 14 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Luddendenfoot → Luddenden Foot – Correct name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - The village sign on the A646 lists it as Luddendenfoot, the school uses Luddendenfoot, newspapers refer to it as Luddendenfoot and the council refer to it as Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot Luddendenfoot - are all these wrong? Jeni ^(talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - The usual local name for the place should be used not just looking at what the OS map uses which is often at odds with normal usage. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
What 3rd party "outside" sources refer to a place as is generally more important than local/primary sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (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.

Add topic