Talk:Ashton Gate, Bristol

Bristol Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles 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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has a map
	This article has an infobox

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ashton Gate Stadium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved per consensus. bd2412 T 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Further to the discussion at Talk:Ashton Gate Stadium, which proposed moving the stadium to the primary article, I believe that the term is ambiguous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no clear consensus on this. Please also see Talk:Ashton Gate Stadium#Requested move for why. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 20:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ashton Gate, Bristol is still ambiguous. I know we have the example of Hillsborough, Sheffield, but I would have the same objection there in principle. Against that we have Headingley as the primary topic, with a hatnote, and Headingley Stadium. But we need a more helpful hatnote for Ashton Gate, which I've done.--Mhockey (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the naming conventions in the UK are [[placename, county]] or [[placename, city]]. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the suburb. I find the current hatnote to be appropriate, considering the relative importance of the stadium. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how you can justify that the location is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Many of the incoming links relate to the stadium, which also has far more page views (5365 v 1446 in last 90 days) and google hits. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the other names are all derived from the name of the suburb. Therefore, if it were not so named, neither would the others be. I appreciate that this view is not unanimously held, but it seems to be common sense to me. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Originally I gave my opinion that if the suburb had been called something else, so would the stadium have a different name. That, to me, is the meaning of "Primary" in a name - not what people are searching in Wikipedia or Google. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the meaning used in Wikipedia. By that logic Boston would point to Boston, Lincolnshire, not the city in Massachusetts. Or more relevantly, Anfield would point to the area of Liverpool, not the stadium. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said: "to me". Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Boston, you're referring to the disambiguation of two place names. As they're both geographical terms, evaluating the primary topic should be simplified - although I expect that residents of both locations would hold split views regarding what they think should be the primary topic, according to sources and common sense (yes, even Massachusetts, where some descendants of original settlers may feel the link to the original town is worthy of more prominent consideration). Sorry for going off topic here...

Anyway, what I think I'm trying to say is that the difference between Boston and Ashton Gate is that the former is an evaluation of locations, whereas the latter is an evaluation of a location itself against derived names actually within that same original location and arguably of less general interest but more specific subject-related interest (football, brewing). I hope that makes my reasoning a little more understandable - but if not, sorry. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per no clear PRIMARYTOPIC (though it could be argued that the stadium actually is). The stadium might be named after the area, but that does not mean that one is more prominent than the other. See the example of Upton Park. Giant Snowman 13:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no clear PRIMARYTOPIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think I may have missed that the move was to disambiguation. I got lost in the previous stadium thing. I agree with this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support As per Mhockey's comment, the first half of the proposal is creating an ambiguous title - wouldn't Ashton Gate (suburb), Ashton Gate (district) or Ashton Gate (neighbourhood) be preferable (if we're allowed to use parentheses)? The second half seems sensible. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment below Mhockey
  - WP:UKPLACE requires a different solution if further disambiguation is required, so I think PaleCloudedWhite is right. WP:PLACE#Disambiguation also tells us: "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them", so Ashton Gate Stadium rather than Ashton Gate; and "Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)".--Mhockey (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stadium is clearly the primary topic, so if there is no consensus for that to be at Ashton Gate, then the suburb should not be either. Number 5 7 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Since this article is a short one, could it not be merged into Southville, Bristol, seeing as Ashton Gate lies within Southville, and structure that article in a similar way to Brislington West (ward). That would free up Ashton Gate for either the dab page or stadium article. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per no clear PRIMARYTOPIC. --Carioca (talk) 20:03, 13 February 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. No further edits should be made to this section.