Talk:River Lee

Proposed 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that disambiguating the two articles can be handled better through hat notes. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

River Lee (Ireland) → River Lee – I suggest moving this to River Lee. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Made as a formal request on 26th January by Snappy (talk · contribs) so please do not close for another 7 days

Agree...obviously! Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest putting this on WP:RM. Moving to River Lee is a tough choice as whilst River Lee (England) was agreed upon to move to River Lea based on geographical locations, common and official namings, the spelling Lee is also used in official naming for the British river, although it is more commonly used for the industrialised parts such as the River Lee Navigation. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I support a move to River Lee, and in my opinion the move does not require an RM. The potential benefit of an RM would be to strengthen this page's claim to the name – a wise precaution given the likelihood of a River Lea RM at some stage in the future. Consensus at an RM would override a local consensus here, whereas an RM here with explicit consensus for this move would be far stronger. Of course, the risk of starting an RM is that it might be overshadowed by another round of discussion on what to call the Lea. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support rename to River Lee as that is its name. A headnote already exists in the article to dispel any confusion ("Not to be confused with River Lea"). — O'Dea (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OpposeNeutral Mainly because it is not clear what you really want. Secondly, that disambigpage "River Lee" might be strengthened by merging in the information of Lee River. The Banner _talk 20:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - it is only ever the River Lee, and quite well known as such, and the River Lea near London is not normally at any risk (Lea Valley vs Lee Valley, etc.) of confusion. SeoR (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If the article on the English river is called "River Lea", then this is the primary meaning of "River Lee". If there is a hatnote, there is no need for a "River Lee" dab page. I support the opposite of The Banners's proposal, i.e. the merging of the "River Lee" dab page into Lee River. --Scolaire (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a specific convention about the naming of rivers? We should try to follow that. But I don't favour flowing left or right, as long as we flow on from the present position. The Banner talk 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lee River is a dab page. Merging all dabs into that page would leave River Lee free for...well, the River Lee. Scolaire (talk)

• Support A hatnote should suffice to disambig. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Use hatnotre for disambiguation. Snappy (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can you expound expand upon the reasons you're thinking, since the above oppose was changed to neutral, leaving you the only one against the move? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only say that the River Lee is a common spelling for the River Lea. Both Lea and Lee are official and common names although Lea does predate it. Because of various industrial reasons and spelling reasons I would say, it is just as primary a spelling as the other one. But I find it a tough choice. Think about the Lee Navigation, the canalised part of the River Lea, and the Lee Valley Park as the two primary topics for opposition. Therefore I don't think there is a clear primary topic. Also I think you mean expand. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that there would be a discussion over at River Lea if the use of Lee was more of the commonname, but there doesn't appear to be one, and the article name uses the Lea form. Also there is an appropriate hatnote in place so that viewers of River Lee would be able to quickly identify that Lea is over at a different page. River Lea does appear to be viewed more often, compared to River Lee (Ireland), however we should need a DAB just to clear up alternate spellings between only two articles where hatnotes would be sufficient. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per nom, it is clearly the primary topic. the DAB page really only has one other valid entry and that is a misspelling, which is a valid concern, but TWODABS addresses that with a hatnote instead of a complete DAB page. Also, the Lee River should probably redirect to Lees River, and that DAB page be removed. I would actually be more in favor of hatnotes between Lees River and River Lee as well. But as far as this specific RM, I support. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly argued. bd2412 T 01:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is precisely what hatnotes are for. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: As BDD says, this is what hatnotes are for. However, I would suggest making the hatnotes more explicit, perhaps to read For the river in England, see River Lea and For the river in Ireland, see River Lee. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Passes any reasonable 'primary topic' test. Don't forget to move the existing dab. Also support the above thoughts about copperfastening hatnotes. 84.203.36.112 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on River Lee. 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/20071117103442/http://www.irishfisheries.com/waterways.asp?P=4&W=44 to http://www.irishfisheries.com/waterways.asp?W=44&P=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222354/http://www.serbd.com/MultiDownloads/Creport/Chapters/Physical%20Description%20Ch3.pdf to http://www.serbd.com/MultiDownloads/Creport/Chapters/Physical%20Description%20Ch3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222354/http://www.serbd.com/MultiDownloads/Creport/Chapters/Physical%20Description%20Ch3.pdf to http://www.serbd.com/MultiDownloads/Creport/Chapters/Physical%20Description%20Ch3.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) 15:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)