Talk:Windermere, Cumbria (town)

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) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 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: moved to Windermere, Cumbria (town). There is a consensus that "Windermere, Cumbria" is ambiguous with the lake and further disambiguation is required – adding a parenthetical "town" garnered the most support. I will redirect to Windemere (disambiguation), but a case could probably be made for it to redirect straight to the lake. If anyone feels it should feel free to start a WP:RFD for it. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Windermere, Cumbria → Windermere Town – Windermere, Cumbria, does not fully distinguish the town from the lake. The lake is the primary topic for "Windermere"; and I think it should also be treated as primary for "Windermere, Cumbria".

However, I am not certain on best title for this article, and none of the options feel right. Windermere Town is apparently the name of the Civil Parish, so may be viable. Windermere (town) and Windermere, Cumbria (town) are also possibilities - but the first is ambiguous with Windermere, Florida, while the second is awkward. Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the current title seems fine, not confusable with Lake Windermere even if that article is at Windermere. If anything, I'd make a disambig page and move Windermere to Lake Windermere.  Having been there, I'm pretty sure I would not assume that Windermere alone would refer to the Lake. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lake is just Windermere, and not Lake Windermere - its not Lake Winder Lake :) It may be worth expanding this to review the location of the lake's article? If moved, "Lake Windermere" is discussed at Windermere, and would be better disambiguation than Windermere (lake) - as it is used in reality. I would feel happier if the town was also disambiguated from the lake.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the current title obviously is ambiguous Windermere, Cumbria (town) would seem to be as good as any of the other options. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Windermere, Cumbria (town). It is indeed currently ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fails naming conventions. Current title isn't a problem, in my opinion. Jeni  ( talk ) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - current name is consistent with other entries such as Windermere, Queensland, Windermere, British Columbia and Windermere, Ontario. The lake gets five times as many views as the town, so I don't think readers are going to be too inconvenienced by requiring two clicks to get to the town's article, particularly as the lake has significant relevance to it. (I'd make some joke about "go jump in a lake" at this point but somebody would get offended, so I won't...) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think my concern here stems from the following: What would someone expect to find at "Windermere" and "Windermere, Cumbria"? The only reason I can see to expect the current layout is foreknowledge of WP's conventions; settlements get comma disambiguation, while natural features are parenthetical. Without knowledge of that, I'd assume both will take me to the same thing - whether that was the town, the lake, or the dab. I would not expect them to point to different things, as that feels unnatural.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets hypothesise that a random person, let's call them "Bill", is on Wikipedia looking for the town of Windermere. First thing they do is type Windermere in the search box. This takes them to the page for the lake, however at the top of that page they see the following statement:
 * This article is about the lake in Cumbria, England. For the town near the lake, see Windermere, Cumbria. For other uses, see Windermere (disambiguation).
 * It's made clear at this point that Windermere, Cumbria is the page about the town. Bill doesn't need knowledge of Wikipedia's naming conventions, be like Bill :-) Jeni  ( talk ) 09:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is if someone goes directly to Windermere, Cumbria what do they expect? Will they expect to get something other than Windermere? Or for that matter, what if they go to Windermere, England? If someone gets to this page via Windermere they are irrelevant to the choice of article name - this article could be at Windermere is a town in Cumbria, England and they would find it as effectively. The naming convention are designed to resolve ambiguity in a placename. Using county generally works, but it fails when there are two in the same county - so Belmont, Harrow and Woolston, south Shropshire. It also fails here, but describing where a Windermere is not going to tell you which Windermere it is (if its one of the English ones). And when the rules fail we should ignore them--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Windermere, Cumbria (town), or even Windermere (Cumbrian town). The current name may well follow established convention, but this is an occasion where the convention fails to disambiguate (both the lake and the town are in Cumbria). As a side-issue, the convention fails in other cases such as City of Carlisle and Carlisle, Cumbria, where both articles are about a city in Cumbria (under different interpretations of "city") --  Dr Greg   talk  11:40, 23 January 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.

Move Review
The above discussion had no consensus and should have closed as such, this is the second time that I have seen said editor close a discussion incorrectly this way, so as per the move review instructions I've asked him to reconsider his position, if he doesn't do this then I shall be starting a move review. Jeni ( talk ) 11:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the title should be Windermere, Cumbria because that is how other town pages have been named if there is more than one place with that name. Windermere, Cumbria (town) seems too much of a mouthful. —RedScrees (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for the move request was "Windermere, Cumbria" could apply equally to the lake or the town (and I'd probably expect Windermere, Cumbria to be about the lake). I agree the current title Windermere, Cumbria (town) is awkward, and my distaste for it should be visible in the discussion above. If a less cumbersome title can be agreed on I am all for it, but unfortunately Windermere, Cumbria is just not viable.
 * The closest analog to this case I can see is Wolin vs Wolin (town). Like here, geographic disambiguation also fails, even though that's what is encouraged for Polish towns.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cumbria in article name
With Cumbria being split into the two unitary authorities (Westmorland and Furness, and Cumberland) Cumbria remains solely as a ceremonial county. Is it therefore appropriate to use "Cumbria" in the article name? Over time, I would guess that each of the new authorities will seek to raise their profiles, and the identifier of the older county name will become less relevant. I don't have any fixed opinion on this – but I think the question needs to be asked. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it's an established Wikipedia convention to disambiguate by ceremonial county, rather than any other sort of county, so no change is needed. This isn't the first time that a non-metropolitan county has been abolished but the ceremonial county has continued (e.g. Cheshire, Bedfordshire).  Dr Greg  talk 21:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be picky, the two Cumbrian villages of Troutbeck rather prove the muddle one can get in with this. The northern one used to be in Cumberland, with the southern one in Westmorland. Then they both ended up in Cumbria, so Wikipedia has them as Troutbeck, Eden and Troutbeck, South Lakeland. If they had been in the same historic county, their names would have been modified to suit (like East Grinstead and West Grinstead, both in West Sussex). As it turns out, the two Troutbecks will end up in Westmorland and Furness. (So, that may well be a problem.) Cumbria is a very large area – your examples of Cheshire and Bedfordshire would fit within each of the new entities into which Cumbria divides. I expect that to produce two strong local identities - bearing in mind that one of the two is (largely) a case of going back to a historic county. Whilst this is not a problem right now, I think we need to keep in mind how this situation might develop. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well "disambiguate by ceremonial county" is the primary method, but that won't always work when the name is still ambiguous, so moving down to smaller subdivisions is fine when it becomes necessary. Troutbeck is a good example where we'll need to think of something else, as both Eden and South Lakeland will be abolished. --  Dr Greg  talk 23:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimately we might need to take some of the principles from WP:COMMONNAME in providing disambiguation, but I suppose that is for the future.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Westmorland and Furness is the name of the local council not the name of the county. Cumbria has not been abolished. -- Devoke water  09:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Windermere, Westmorland and Furness (town)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windermere,_Westmorland_and_Furness_(town)&redirect=no Windermere, Westmorland and Furness (town)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Devoke water  09:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Windermere (town), Westmorland and Furness" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windermere_(town),_Westmorland_and_Furness&redirect=no Windermere (town), Westmorland and Furness] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Devoke water  09:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)