Talk:Kingswood, Stroud District

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is confusion here! Kingswood Gloucestershire is NOT the same as Kingswood, South Gloucestershire, but is a small village near Wotton-under-Edge. I give notice that I shall edit in due course!Linuxlad 10:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

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: Move Kingswood, Gloucestershire to Kingswood, Stroud District, redirect Kingswood, Gloucestershire to dab, and leave Kingswood, South Gloucestershire where it is. After over a month of discussion this appears to be the consensus. There is clear consensus that the Stroud District community is not the primary topic of the two, and rough consensus preferring "Stroud District" over "Stroud". There's no agreement that the South Gloucestershire town should be moved, and no consensus that the base name should redirect to it. As such, for the time being the name will redirect to Kingswood. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– There are two Kingswoods in Gloucestershire - this one in Stroud district and the other in South Glos. Per WP:UKPLACE, when the county is insufficient to disambiguate, the district should be used, so this article should be moved to Kingswood, Stroud. Kingswood, Gloucestershire would then redirect to the dab.

However, the settlement in South Glos is much larger, and receives significantly more page views than this article ([1][2]). Therefore the Kingswood in South Glos ought to be treated as primary topic for "Kingswood, Gloucestershire", and placed at that location - with a hatnote to this article. Nilf anion (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose moving "South Gloucestershire" & Strong support moving to "Stroud" -- WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea, and all three pages use comma disambiguation. "South Gloucestershire" should stay where it is. "Kingswood, Gloucestershire" should redirect to the disambiguation page. "Stroud" should be used due to the ambiguous naming failing PRECISE -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - support in principle (it needs renaming) though ideally shouldn't the article be called Kingswood, Stroud District, particularly because (1) I presume it's not in the town of Stroud and (2) there are a number of other Strouds in the UK? Sionk (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that - the initial proposal is based on the precise phrasing at UKPLACE, and other instances where the district shares its name with the largest town. gnoring the letter of the guidance (which I think needs revision), certainly Stroud District is better than Stroud.--Nilf anion (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. There seems to be broad agreement that this article should be renamed (and use "Stroud District"), however more input on whether the South Gloucestershire town is the primary topic would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kingswood has many many uses, so I see no reason to make it go without a disambiguator -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Kigswood[reply]

That means if it is primary topic for "Kingswood, Gloucestershire" - clearly it is not for Kingswood.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving Kingswood, Gloucestershire to Kingswood, Stroud District, and leaving Kingswood, South Gloucestershire where it is. The latter is probably more often referred to as Kingswood, Bristol, but that would offend some people. Kingswood, Gloucestershire should probably be a redirect to Kingswood, South Gloucestershire, as much the bigger place, with an appropriate dab hatnote.--Mhockey (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support a move of Kingswood, South Gloucestershire -> Kingswood, Gloucestershire as that goes against the dab of using the district when a dab is required. I do not think that it should be classed as a primary topic as it has a dab.

As for the other one using Stroud District as a dab would really mean that we should always use District as part of the dab for all locations which is not done. The use of the name Stroud is fine and in line with the rules we have in WP:UKPLACE. I think that we need much wider discussion before going down that route. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not think that Kingswood, Stroud would conform to WP:UKPLACE. It would be fine if the place was in Stroud, but it's not (it's 14 miles away from Stroud). But it is in Stroud District, so Kingswood, Stroud District would conform to WP:UKPLACE.--Mhockey (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support first move as nominated - i.e. move Kingswood, Gloucestershire → Kingswood, Stroud. But not to Kingswood, Stroud District. I find that to be awkward disambig, and per Keith D it would be contrary to WP:UKPLACE and other cases. Even when the district shares a name with its main town, and the village is some distance from that town, the precedent is not to include "District" or "Borough" in the disambiguator. For example Brampton, Carlisle and Alstone, Tewkesbury and Swinton, Harrogate etc. I see no reason to do anything different here. On the second move, I oppose making the South Glos location a primary topic for the partial disambig for Kingswood, Gloucestershire. Keep it is, and make Kingswood, Gloucestershire redirect to Kingswood. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think using Stroud District would be contrary to UKPLACE. UKPLACE just says district should be used, not how that should be done. Practice certainly is to use "short form", but that doesn't make it right. Has it even been questioned before this RM? That matter should be resolved at the broader discussion at WT:UKGEO--Nilf anion (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, thanks, I didn't realise there was a wider discussion on that page. I've added something there as well. — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingswood, Stroud District. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402113433/https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11125252&c=kingswood&d=16&e=62&g=6427939&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1427708913891&enc=1 to https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11125252&c=kingswood&d=16&e=62&g=6427939&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1427708913891&enc=1

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) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2019

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: no consensus to move. No additional comments were made after the previous relist, and prior to the relist, there was also no consensus for these moves. Due to lack of further participation, I do not see another relist resulting in further clarification of consensus. At this point, I recommend that if another move request is to occur, the below requests should be done individually rather than bundled. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Although using "District" or "Borough of..." is common usage/natural disambiguation it isn't used when there is no ambiguity. In fact the old version of WP:UKPLACE specified this and in the case of London boroughs the prefix is always included while with other districts its generally only done when needed such as Tonbridge and Malling just being at the name, districts with city and unitary status often have "City of ..." on the OS but there usually concurrent enough that UKPLACE would use the urban settlement's name anyway. An exception would be when there is ambiguity between the district and the thing its named after for example there are 2 Huishes in Devon, one in the North Devon district and one in the Torridge district but since Torridge is in the northern part of Devon, Huish, North Devon would be ambiguous (since the upper case "N" wouldn't likely be enough) so we would use Huish, North Devon District. In none of these cases is there any ambiguity in using just the district's name alone. I would also note that despite the island being at Isle of Arran (per the OS) places disambiguated by it only use "Arran" such as Corrie, Arran (although the Commons category is at Commons:Category:Corrie, Isle of Arran because I moved it). In this case the OS uses just "Stroud" with "Stroud District" being an alternative name. I would note that I was the nom at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 20#Districts of England but the natural disambiguation isn't needed here. I would also note Woodmancote, Tewkesbury Borough would be incorrect even if this was normal convention, it would actually be Woodmancote, Borough of Tewkesbury per WP:UKDISTRICTS and the "West Sussex" would be unnecessary either way for Woodmancote, West Sussex (Chichester District). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Funnily enough I proposed this change for Kingswood last time. Now I'm not so sure, though. Stroud, Tewkesbury and Sevenoaks are primarily known as towns, and saying "Kingswood, Stroud" makes it look like a suburb of the town while actually it is quite some distance away, and more affiliated with the South Gloucestershire /Bristol conurbation. I'd be inclined to leave this as is, per WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:RECOGNIZE — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem, most districts use the natural format so if we keep this we will need to look at moving the others disambiguated by district (a lot more than just moving the 4 here that our out of line with the others), doesn't this add an unnessesarry layer of complication when just using the plain district works fine? Although the title looks like it would be a suburb there's unlikely to be confusion unless there is another settlement nearby with the same name. The other Kingswood isn't near Stroud for example. Along those lines would you recommend moving the places disambiguated by island to "Foo, Isle of X" when "Isle of X" is on the OS like I did on Commons last year. As I noted at Talk:Point, Lewis#Requested move 25 January 2019 that I think that that should be done but there seems to be consensus against that. Maybe my Commons moves were a bit unnecessary but I also moved some (such as Jura and Harris) that were at "Foo, Isle of X" to "Foo, X" when just "X" was on the OS. Consider another example, the article on the prefecture is at Wakayama Prefecture but those in Category:Towns in Wakayama Prefecture just use "Wakayama" to qualify such as Kozagawa, Wakayama. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. Peter James (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. We disambiguate by district name when county is insufficient. and in WP the district name is Stroud District. If Kingswood was a part of Stroud, we would disambiguate by the name of the town. But it is not, it is part of the district.--Mhockey (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the district name is "Stroud" just like Babergh, Castle Point, Trafford etc. The "District" disambiguator isn't needed here similar to Mendip District but Whatley, Mendip, City of Carlisle but Hayton, Carlisle, Selby District but Hambleton, Selby and Hambleton District/Borough of Scarborough but Borrowby, Hambleton/Borrowby, Scarborough. Why make an exception here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that "District" in Stroud District is not simply a disambiguator. It is the preferred name of the District in WP (because it is unambiguous). If we use Stroud or Carlisle to refer to the district rather than the settlement, we introduce another ambiguity in a disambiguation. Why do that if you can so easily avoid it?--Mhockey (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a disambiguator per WP:UKDISTRICTS "Non-metropolitan districts without ambiguity are just the name" while this one is disambiguated with "District" because that's a common name and is better than having it at Stroud (district) and it can't go at Stroud but "Stroud" is the preferred name of the district on WP. In these cases there is no ambiguity or technical restrictions preventing us using simply "Stroud" to disambiguate Kingswood. If there was a place called "Kingswood" in the town of Stroud that wasn't in the district then the "District" part would be needed but there isn't. As per previous RMs (like Wyre, Harborough Elmbridge) I've supported using the natural disambiguation for the district articles themselves but that's not needed with topics that are disambiguated by district. This introduces unnecessary complication with disambiguation and is inconsistant with all the other places disambiguated by district (like Whatley, Mendip). Do you propose that we move all articles like Whatley, Mendip or just some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The examples in the guideline are Belmont, Sutton, and Belmont, Harrow, no "London Borough of" in the disambiguation when that's the preferred name. Peter James (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is clear enough here, unless we want to rename the others, these should be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UKDISTRICTS "London boroughs take the form London Borough of Hackney" even those like London Borough of Barking and Dagenham that are unambiguous (Barking and Dagenham just redirects to the borough). On the other hand UKDISTRICTS specifies "Non-metropolitan districts without ambiguity are just the name, such as Allerdale or Thurrock" with those ambiguous using the district/borough status, such as Bolsover District or Borough of Bedford. In this case while "Stroud" is ambiguous as an article hence Stroud District it isn't ambiguous as a disambiguator and thus the status isn't needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.