Talk:Gamblesby

CCHT external link
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (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: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamblesby, Glassonby → Gamblesby — Relisted.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The other entry on the disambiguation page appears to be referring to Gamelsby, so I have moved that article. This article is now the only one called Gamblesby, and it's also the larger of the two places, and a former civil parish, so it should be the primary topic; maybe a hatnote could be added if the the hamlet near Aikton is also sometimes referred to as Gamblesby. snigbrook (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

***Incorrect - there are two articles here. both in Cumbria - you just changed the DAB page to a redirect to hide that fact. I have reverted that edit Ron h jones (Talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither article is substantial enough to be a primary topic  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to play the primary topic card, there is only one article here by the name of Gamblesby Jeni  ( talk ) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One is at 54.74833°N, -2.615°W and the other at 54.86139°N, -3.15583°W Correction, looking at the maps, one is spelt wrong!
 * I don't think it's an incorrect spelling - it's more likely to be an old version of the name, now an alternative spelling, that still appears occasionally. snigbrook (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (and suggest early closure on common sense grounds) - Single article by this name, no need for disambiguation. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * 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.