Talk:Bramham, West Yorkshire

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bramham, West Yorkshire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates rather than list of references which do not show which facts they support Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS Locate a suitable photograph to go in infobox External links need to be checked for relevance as per WP:EL Keith D (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 10:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

---

• Bramham, West Yorkshire → Bramham
• Bramham → Bramham (disambiguation)

– WP:PRECISION, the only topic called "Bramham" and none them look prominent enough to be referred to as just "Bramham" and they don't show up in a Google search. Move the DAB to Bramham (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. All other uses are partial title matches, and none are of any prominence. PC78 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. The current DAB page has worked perfectly well since 2007. This sort of change serves no purpose and risks collecting bad links-in to the WP:PTOPIC which will degrade the encyclopaedia.

I note in passing that there are at least two other full title matches on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: What others? All that I have checked are called something more than just "Bramham". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bramham Island and HMS Bramham. The qualifier will be dropped in colloquial usage. Possibly also Bramham Park. Narky Blert (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Even taking into account the jump HMS Bramham gets [[1]] it and the island still average around 1 view a day while the villages averages 11 as for the park, that makes a stronger case for treating the village as primary (per WP:DABCONCEPT) since its a sub topic of it and that averages 34 views. In any case I doubt that a significant of readers/editors would search for the island or the ship with just "Bramham". And not that being the original meaning necessarily makes a meaning primary but both the island and ship derive their name from the village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pageview stats don't indicate that the village is on top or more likely to be sought than everything else combined. The current title is clear and seems fine. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• As far as views[[2]] go I count 1468 for West Yorkshire (Bramham, West Yorkshire, Bramham Park, Battle of Bramham Moor, Bramham cum Oglethorpe and Bramham Horse Trials) but only 383 for the others and that figure assumes those other topic are called just "Bramham" which they aren't. And for the argument that Bramham Park is a contender, WP:DABCONCEPT applies and it is linked in the overview section and a DAB page is for readers seeking unrelated topics, not for related topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure DABCONCEPT applies in the way you're suggesting. What DABCONCEPT says is that if a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing capable of being described in an article, and many of the possibly ambiguous links are instances/examples of that concept or type, then the term should be an article, not a dab page. A good example is the Microsoft Lumia: it's a family of phones containing many specific models of phone — and so we have an article (not a dab) at the base name.

  In this case it sounds like you're suggesting that the town of Bramham, West Yorkshire is a broad concept or type of thing, and that a number of the other articles (a country house, a parish, an international equestrian competition, etc.) are more specific instances of the town — and I don't see how that's so. Though obviously they're related by name or location, they're all different things and decidedly not of the same broad concept or type.

  That being the case, I think it's most reasonable to consider them separately, and on that basis the village by itself does not meet the requirements for primary topic status. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think that the example of "instances of" is used as an example since people are more likely to create a DAB page since such topics may appear to be different. In this case the park, parish, battle and competition refer to the village (similar to Microsoft Lumia and Microsoft Lumia 640) in a similar way to Liverpool/Liverpool F.C. and Tottenham/Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. In the rare case of Heathrow Airport/Heathrow (hamlet) a sub meaning might usurp a subject but that's usually only when that meaning would be universally understood. And in the Bramham, West Yorkshire article those topic are mentioned (and linked to) which is one of the principals of DABCONCEPT. Consider this post for example, if you type "Bramham" you should get something about the village and the park, parish, battle and competition not just the park for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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.