Talk:Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency)

Requested move 4 June 2016

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

– Why do we need a disambiguator in these article names? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 00:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency) → Combined English Universities
 * Combined Scottish Universities (UK Parliament constituency) → Combined Scottish Universities
 * Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (UK Parliament constituency) → Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities
 * Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities (UK Parliament constituency) → Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities

Oppose. For consistency with other articles about UK Parliament constituencies, all of which have the disambiguator. Also, there is for example no such entity as Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities - the combination only has relevance in relation to Parliamentary representation.George Burgess (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) which states "United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (current or defunct) should have a uniform suffix of "(UK Parliament constituency)" or "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" as appropriate, whether or not this is required for disambiguation" AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: as has already been noted by other users all United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies are disambiguated in a uniform manner for the sake of consistency. Ebonelm (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – the guideline quoted by opposers above was enacted after an RFC with low participation that was closed by an editor with a WP:COI. In that proposal, concerns about WP:AT compliance, most notably WP:PRECISION, were brought up and ignored by the supporters. A review of that guideline is necessary. For now, I cannot oppose this RM. SST  flyer  01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. That guideline is contra to all standard titling practice on Wikipedia and the Article titles policy. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2016 (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.