Talk:Walbrook

Needs

• A local map of the brook
• pictures of the brook
• further indications of why this little brook is NOTABLE enough to have a Wikipedia Page!

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This "little brook" is pretty much why London (the original Roman city in any case) was built where it was. And anyway, the article is not just about the watercourse, but also the 1000-year old City ward. David (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Propose split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suggest the river content could be split off into a separate River Walbrook article. Although connected, the river and the ward are quite different subjects, both of significance to London. --Gapfall (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Support: A separate article on the river would seem sensible...Jokulhlaup (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Support: A separate article on the ward in the City of London would help in mentioning people from the ward, contrasted with the river itself.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though I'd suggest doing it the other way around: keeping this article on the river, and splitting off Walbrook (ward) into a separate article. Robofish (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramblerdes (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Support: Many wards and their namesakes - eg city gates - are handled in an inconsistent way. Better to split them in some way AlasdairDaw (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.