Talk:Structure plan

Split?
It's fairly obvious that SPs as they used to exist in the UK, and SPs in Australia, are different beasts that happen to share the same title. So, I propose that the article be split into Structure plan (UK) and Structure plan (Australia), with this page becoming a disambiguation page. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't Split
Most readers will be interested to see the differences between the two planning practices and the article is so short that it does not disadvantage someone who is only interested in one of the two jurisdictions. Also, this is part of Wikilegal, and legal researchers greatly benefit from being able to discern the relevance or otherwise of practice in different jurisdictions (which gives them clues as to where to search for relevant legislation or judicial cases). Finally, there are many articles regarding a single subject that are then subdivided by country, most of them much longer than this article.Steveau2 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue for me is that there is virtually no similarity between "structure plans" in the UK and those in Australia - as someone who used to work on UK structure plans, the Australian ones seem to be quite different, more akin to what we would call local plans or local development plans. It is not a "single subject" - the only common factor is the name "structure plan".  So, we should be guided by WP:CONSPLIT - split the article and provide a disambiguation page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)