Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Chester County, Pennsylvania

Current listings (includes South Chester County)

 * }

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. 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: moved. No prejudice against a merge discussion, but RM is not the appropriate place to have it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

– Use descriptive, lowercase titles "northern", "southern", "eastern" rather than appearing to coin new proper noun terms that, I believe, don't exist outside Wikipedia. do ncr  am  03:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Northern Chester County, Pennsylvania → National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Chester County, Pennsylvania
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Eastern Chester County, Pennsylvania → National Register of Historic Places listings in eastern Chester County, Pennsylvania
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania → National Register of Historic Places listings in southern Chester County, Pennsylvania


 * Support as proposer. By the way, the three articles were split out of one too-large Chester County NRHPs list as the result of 2009 discussion showing at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Eastern Chester County, Pennsylvania.  The names for the resulting articles weren't discussed a lot then.  There was no suggestion then that "Northern Chester County" etc. were actual named places.  I think it's best to rename as proposed. -- do  ncr  am  15:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge all; 311 properties is not overly long for a county-wide list. Powers T 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Name change is fine, but whatever you do, don't merge them. When they were split several years ago, it was simply impossible to load the article.  Things may have changed with faster internet speeds, etc. but now there are more templates in these lists as well, which causes problems.  As I read comments at WT:NRHP when similar problems come up, it used to be thought that lists of about 100-150 sites should be split; now it is more like 150-200 sites, still a far way from 311.  I'll also note that this is one of the largest lists for a rural county for NRHP sites, so we don't have to worry about dozens of split tables like this.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:12, 7 September 2012 (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.