Talk:Seascape
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
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. While the page was moved with no objections, I think serious consideration should be given to splitting out the planning designation. If that leaves a stub, it does not make the split wrong. [[User:Vegaswikia] (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Seascape (planning) → Seascape – The planning material is interesting, but prevents material which is outside the scope of the marine art entry from being included. I would like to add some information about photographic seascapes, for example. Not all of the current article is about planning (i.e. the lead paragraph and the material about the Welsh language). There seems little point in having two short articles about Seascapes in art and Seascapes in planning. RandomLettersForName (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
- I have only just seen this & have very strong objections indeed. The move makes absolutely no sense, nor does the nomination. What are you talking about here:"There seems little point in having two short articles about Seascapes in art and Seascapes in planning"? There is this very short article on a particular term in British planning law, and a rather long article on Marine art, which is clearly where the material on photography is likely to belong. You say "The planning material is interesting, but prevents material which is outside the scope of the marine art entry from being included" which is absolutely true, but a strong reason to keep things as they were, and no argument in favour of what you proposed. The artistic term is clearly the primary one; the plain term should revert to being a redirect to the art page.Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)