Jump to content

Talk:Craigavon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Craigavon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Craigavon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Surely a different name would have been better such as Craigavon, County Armagh? This new title is at odds with how the place is referred to by everyone and everything else. Adding the county is the most common form of disambiguation. Mabuska (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why the disambiguation is even needed for when a simple top the page "For other uses" could have been used especially considering how few other things Craigavon and all of them have their disambiguated title. In other words Craigavon (disambiguation) should be the parent title as is the norm. Mabuska (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss the move discussion? The Banner talk 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normal uncontroversial page moves don't require a discussion, but I feel that this one should have had one. Like surely this article, despite what Jnestorius said, is the primary topic about Craigavon? Mabuska (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you look at the statistics, the place wins hands down as primary topic (2500+ page views in the last 30 days). The others score 201 (the council), 159 (the viscount) and 45 (the sport-club). And the title itself give me a toothache. With a planned town I expect a toew that is planned to be build. Reverting the renaming or moving to your proposal "Craigavon, County Armagh" would be a much better idea. The Banner talk 19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I accept that I was too bold to move without discussion, sorry about that. Now that we're having the discussion my rationale for the move: I would have said prior to 2015 that the main topic for "Craigavon" was Craigavon Borough Council rather than the new town. There is one sentence in the lede

"Craigavon sometimes refers to the much larger Craigavon Urban Area, which includes Craigavon, Lurgan, Portadown, Waringstown and Bleary."

There should certainly not be a redlink for Craigavon Urban Area; a relevant question is whether that Craigavon Urban Area should be

  1. a redirect to Craigavon (planned town) or whatever it is moved to
  2. a redirect to Craigavon Borough Council (or a reverse redirect from the defunct council) to the area
  3. a new separate article

If the answer to the question is #1 then this article is main topic. If it is #2 or #3 then not. I had a look through Special:WhatLinksHere/Craigavon, repointed a few to the Borough Council, and found these at least which relate to the Urban Area rather than the planned town:

Article Snippet
List of World War II prisoner-of-war camps in the United Kingdom (Camp Name Brittania Barracks: Gilford) (Near: Elmsfield, Craigavon, Portadown)
Lurgan Celtic F.C. one of the strongest clubs in the Craigavon area.
Dromore, County Down The area is also linked with Craigavon (in particular, Lurgan)
Winston Dugan, 1st Baron Dugan of Victoria He attended Lurgan College, Craigavon, Ireland
Ervia the towns and cities near the two pipelines - Antrim, Armagh, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Banbridge, Craigavon, Derry, Limavady and Newry
List of university hospitals Craigavon, Northern Ireland: Craigavon Area Hospital
Ireland Urban Area Population: Craigavon 57,651

jnestorius(talk) 22:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already corrected three templates that were all pointing to the town.The Banner talk 23:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I do normally fix templates post moves; clearly I was not at my brightest yesterday. (Mind all four of the templates in Baptist Centre could be merged into one, and the connection with Craigavon is apparently that it is the post town...) jnestorius(talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would discount the council name argument because we have the same situation with towns and councils with the same name such as Magherafelt, Cookstown and Ballymena. None of them evwe needed to be moved. Craigavon Borough Council has its own unique disambiguation already. Albeit none of those articles have a "For other uses" or any such hatnote at the top of their articles either.
The Urban Area I would think refers more to the planned town rather than the council. Indeed it probably reflects what was originally intended but happened in the end via urban sprawl. As such I would say the Urban Area and Craigavon planned town are the same thing and the article can easily incorporate what it was meant to be and what it is now in the lede. Mabuska (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the lede already mentions the Urban Area and what it covers. As such i say simply redirect the redlink to this article. Mabuska (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly two meanings in the lede:
  • Among local people today, "Craigavon" refers to the area between the two towns [Lurgan and Portadown]
  • Craigavon sometimes refers to the much larger Craigavon Urban Area, which includes Craigavon, Lurgan, Portadown, Waringstown and Bleary
I think it is important to distinguish between those. It's not so much like the difference between Belfast and Greater Belfast; more like the difference between Stoke-upon-Trent and Stoke-on-Trent, or between Essen and Ruhr. If someone is from Portadown are they from Craigavon? Arguably, but it is better to say they are from Portadown and either not mention Craigavon at all or else say "Portadown in the Craigavon Urban Area". The advantage of having separate articles (option #3 above) is that any inlinks can be checked for ambiguity and repointed to the more specific article (or reworded) as appropriate
There seems to be a lot of tidying up outstanding for NI articles to separate out the obsolete districts from the eponymous towns. You mention Ballymena; the lede of that currently says incorrectly:
Ballymena incorporates an area of 632 square kilometres (244 square miles) and is home to large villages such as Cullybackey, Galgorm, Ahoghill and Broughshane.
{{1972 districts of Northern Ireland}} sometimes has separate articles for the area as opposed to the council and sometimes doesnt:
Looks like someone got as far as Castlereagh and got tired.... jnestorius(talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a conclusion to this discussion would of been better to get first before moving the article to another title @The Banner:, though it does look better. The only issue I would have with it is that that sort of disambiguation is for places that share the same name especially on this island where a county disambiguator makes it easy to separate them. That is not the case here unless there is a Craigavon hidden away somewhere else. I still see no reason as to why this article should not occupy the namespace it has had for years. A hatnote to Craigavon (disambiguation) at the top of this article is all that is needed. Mabuska (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name should be reverted to 'Craigavon', as the settlement is clearly the primary topic. There's no need to disambiguate with "planned town" or "County Armagh". Neighboring Craigavon, Lurgan and Portadown are sometimes grouped together as the 'Craigavon area', such as by NISRA. But that isn't much different than grouping together Belfast, Newtownabbey, Holywood, Dundonald, Dunmurry etc as the 'Belfast area'. Craigavon Urban Area could lead to this article, where there should be a short explanation of what it refers to.
The article has been moved twice without consensus, and should be reverted to its original name unless there's an agreement to change it. ~Asarlaí 21:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone else with a response. Two editors with differing views on many things coming to the same conclusion and suggestion here says it all I think. Mabuska (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, "It's not so much like the difference between Belfast and Greater Belfast; more like the difference between Stoke-upon-Trent and Stoke-on-Trent, or between Essen and Ruhr." The other point is that "County Armagh" does not distinguish the planned town from the urban area, since both are in County Armagh. jnestorius(talk) 13:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far no-one else has agreed with your points on why this article needed moved. The naming of this article has never been an issue until you moved it with no discussion. The point you make about County Armagh, which I also addressed above is also a poor name for the article as adding the county in general is done when there are two settlements or geographical features with the same name which is not the case here.
We should have this article moved back to its original namespace and you can open a RfC on whether or not the move is merited, which I can't see how it is especially when all that is needed is a very simple and basic {{other uses|Craigavon (disambiguation)}} at the top of the page as many articles of primary topic have when there are other lesser topics of same or similar name. 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed such a simple edit to make that I'll add it to the article now seeing as currently there is no indication of a disambiguation page after this move to facilitate disambiguation. Mabuska (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article is "Craigavon is an incomplete planned settlement". I still do not believe the "incomplete planned settlement" is the MAINTOPIC for "Craigavon", and I still don't believe an aside later on saying "Craigavon sometimes refers to the much larger Craigavon Urban Area" will suffice for confused readers. I think the meaning of "Craigavon" is fuzzy and having separate articles for the incomplete planned settlement and the Urban Area will force editors to avoid fuzziness by making them to link to whichever of the two articles is more appropriate. In other words, I think a disambiguation page will help to disambiguate. Perhaps we can all at least agree that, whether within one article or two, the content needs work, to better distinguish the incomplete planned settlement from the Urban Area. jnestorius(talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, further work on the content is needed. However I still suggest that as you are only proponent of the move with the limited input we have had: 1 for and 3 against that the article be moved back to its original namespace and a RfC opened for further views on whether the move is merited at all. Whilst I accept you find that it may be confusing for readers, we've not had any such complaints. I will concede that when the article was created back in 2003 the editor had listed simply as a (now defunct) borough. It soon after became residential development before becoming even quicker to a town which it has had ever since as far as I can tell. Mabuska (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jnestorius, the meaning of 'Craigavon' isn't really fuzzy, at least not for anyone from or familiar with that part of the country. Craigavon Borough no longer exists, so 'Craigavon' only means the large settlement between Lurgan and Portadown. The original plan of building a large city was abandoned, but calling it merely an "incomplete planned settlement" is misleading and shouldn't have been in the article. Craigavon, Lurgan and Portadown are sometimes grouped together as the 'Craigavon area', but it's a lot like saying 'Belfast area'. The name 'Craigavon Urban Area' was coined by NISRA and is mostly used by them. They also invented the fictional settlement of 'Metropolitan Castlereagh' which groups together Dundonald, Newtownbreda and bits of east Belfast. ~Asarlaí 21:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also no town or settlement is ever officially "complete" as no settlement unless there is incredibly strict planning permission is ever finished. As such "incomplete" is a misnomer. Mabuska (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


– The article was moved from Craigavon two years ago without an RM and there was some opposition to doing so (see above). This is the only article on that list known as simply Craigavon (with the exception of the Canadian town which does not have an article), so not only is the disambiguation of this article's title pointless but I also don't believe there is even any need to retain a Craigavon (disambiguation) page. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Craigavon, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Craigavon → Delete to make way for page move" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craigavon&oldid=1206817764"