This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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.
United Counties of Leeds and Grenville → Leeds and Grenville United Counties – Revert to pre-2012-10-28 state, when the longstanding name Leeds and Grenville United Counties was changed to United Counties of Leeds and Grenville[1]. Google count suggests that is the common name. The official name might indeed be "United Counties of Leeds and Grenville" but that is irrelevant for the decision regarding the article name. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Androoox (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the context of this article, so long as the lead indicates the more recent change, I'd agree that common usage in the public sphere (and, being only a recent change, no doubt Ngram would still reflect the former title) should take preference. Should the latest naming convention become more popular, it can easily be changed again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Withdrawing support per brief discussion under Saffron Blaze's opposition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The argument put forth in 2012 is still valid. Neither name has much caché and it is likely the official name will take Google precedence in the very near future. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity the rationale hadn't been recorded on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the mover did put a summary in the edit: "Floydian moved page Leeds and Grenville United Counties to United Counties Leeds and Grenville: try to introduce some consistency, per bolded term in article lead and the format that seems to be used by the majority of other United Counties...". Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've followed the history trail since your objection. Given the logic for the change, I'm withdrawing my support as it isn't an area I work in and, unlike yourself and Floydian, I haven't invested any time or energy in the article. Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see this was re-listed. I still oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't fly, so why has it been re-listed? This time I'll add my voice to the dissent as the rationale for keeping the current naming convention in order to maintain consistency with other counties seems entirely in order. Oppose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United Counties of Leeds and Grenville's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
