Talk:London Bridge
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic London Bridge
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Wiktionary is no encyclopedia of bridges -- Liliana • 15:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- An argument might be made for this bridge being an exception due to its iconic nature, but not with that definition. Besides, there's one bridge by this name that got shipped off to the US,so the definition isn't completely true. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's no consensus on this entry, but I say delete it per Chuck Entz. Why include famous landmarks merely because they are famous? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Despite being Wonderfoolery, I think it conforms to WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The relevant passage is "Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which." It seems wrong to say it 'conforms to' the criteria set out by this passage, as their are none. It's perfectly true to say that nothing in WT:CFI#Names of specific entities excludes this entry, but there's nothing in this passage that endorses this type of entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- What meant is that I think London Bridge belongs to the included side of "many should be excluded while some should be included". Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The relevant passage is "Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which." It seems wrong to say it 'conforms to' the criteria set out by this passage, as their are none. It's perfectly true to say that nothing in WT:CFI#Names of specific entities excludes this entry, but there's nothing in this passage that endorses this type of entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- IMO delete. Landmarks like this should be outside our scope. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- A further thought: in this particular case (unlike some geographic names), it would be a reasonable guess that this was a bridge located in London (just like Sydney + opera house). That doesn't automatically mean that any bridge in London is the London Bridge, but really any further details are encyclopaedic. This makes it even more obvious and unnecessary here than actual place names like, say, Toowoomba, which means nothing to most people. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Encyclopedic. Maro 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- London Bridge is falling down. My fair lady. (Ignore me. Just thinking out loud.) -- ALGRIF talk 18:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)