Talk:Treaty of London

Documentation re the 1359 Treaty of London

Details will appear on the talk page for Treaty of London (1359). Their main relevance here is to justify the change to the entry for the above-named treaty, by explaining that the old text is ambiguous, but evidence exists to support this construction of the former text

The description of the (14th-century) Treaty of London as "Treaty ceding western France to England, repudiated by the Estates-General in Paris, 19 May 1359" is supported by Web data, in every detail, as long as the reading of these three ambiguous phrases is

the (14th-century) Treaty of London ceded large parts of western France to England, but was repudiated by the Estates-General in Paris on 19 May 1359.

--Jerzy 07:40, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC)

1700 Treaty of London

needs more work; connects to Pragmatic Sanction and Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria -- ;Bear 22:47, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

1852?

Isn't there a treaty of 1852, subsequent to the one of 1832? [1] Philip Trueman 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the 1718 Treaty of London, by which the Duke of Savoy gave up Sicily for Sardinia? PatGallacher (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a dab page

@DuncanHill and Pdfpdf: This is a list article, not a disambiguation page. It could easily be titled List of treaties made in London. Or it could be a broad-concept article, about the history and reasons that London has so often been a place for the crafting and signing of treaties.

WP:DABCONCEPT says:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. [emphasis mine]

It goes on to say,

Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically..., the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. [again, my emphasis]

The nuances of disambiguation pages baffle many editors; it's common to mistake a list of very similar items for a dab page. DuncanHill, I hope you will reconsider your revert. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The title Treaty of London is inherently ambiguous, it refers to many different things all known by the same name, and for convenience on Wikipedia given date disambiguators. Treaty of London can't be treated as a "broad concept or type of thing", because it isn't. Again, it's not a "general topic that can be divided into subtopics" as each Treaty of London is a discrete thing or subject, with no necessary relation to any of the others. DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

While there may be some entries that don't strictly conform to disambiguation page standards, I agree with DuncanHill that this term is highly ambiguous and overall I think it is better to leave this as a disambiguation page to help ensure that mistaken links are marked in order to facilitate disambiguation. The nonconforming entries can be moved to see also if necessary. older ≠ wiser 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All right. I obviously still confuse lists and dabs myself. Since this is a dab page, I'm off to self-revert a bunch of edits now. Thanks to all of you for helping out. — Gorthian (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW: While you're at it, could you restore the deleted article please? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)