Talk:Baltic Exchange (building)

Requested move 17 May 2018

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: Page not moved. Alternative consensus. (non-admin closure) Gateshead001 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Baltic Exchange (building) → Baltic Exchange bombing – There is a lot more information about the bombing and its aftermath, rather than the building per se. In fact the only info I see about the building itself is the designers and year (1903), it being Grade II listed, and the mention of a film shooting. There is already a Baltic Exchange Memorial Glass article, which covers all about the building's stained glass. The bombing was a hugely significant event that should instead bear the article name, rather than the building. Gateshead001 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This is a hugely significant building in its own right - but I would not have a problem if you wanted to start a separate article on the bombing (and transfer all the bombing material to the new article). Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was originally thinking of starting a separate bombing article, but realised that this building article would then become very short and lacking. That tells me that it's not significant enough, and that this information could be added in a Building section in the bombing article instead. --Gateshead001 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that. This was an important building in its own right. It was actually Grade II* rather than Grade II and there is quite a lot of information in the article about its design, construction etc. Also the article has already been assessed and graded as class 'B' in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture project. Dormskirk (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gateshead001: I would strongly encourage you to withdraw this RM and go with your first instinct. As would @Dormskirk: by the look of above. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, and alternative consensus: fork out to separate article on the bombing, or merge that content into 1992 Staples Corner bombing. Sad that the bomber who killed the 15-year old girl and two others doesn't get his own name into the article. Maybe forking out the article and spending more time on the victims and the bomber(s) being free is a better way than a mention in an architecture article. In fact this screams for forking. How it has been one article till now is surprising. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi – not much content of this article is devoted to actual bombing, but rather to its aftermath concerning the building. It would be indeed best to selectively merge with 1992 Staples Corner bombing into Baltic Exchange and Staples Corner bombings and cover them in one article, like e.g. this source does. No such user (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Based on the opposition regarding this move, I've put a halt to the move request. The building article will remain, whilst the bombing topic will be forked to Baltic Exchange bombing. I was probably wrong from the beginning - I never knew this was such a highly rated building (Grade II*). --Gateshead001 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)