Talk:Towton

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Towton, North Yorkshire → Towton —(Discuss)— The current scenario is a two-link disambiguation page with one to the city and another to the battle fought at the city which is superfluous. —76.167.156.93 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a page move is necessary or appropriate. The village's only claim to notability is the battle, suggesting that if someone types "Towton", there's a chance they're looking for the battle. This is backed up by the stats tool. Last year, Towton, North Yorkshire was viewed 114 times. Towton was viewed 231 times, showing that over 50% of people were looking for the battle, which had 3225 hits last month. Therefore, there is no reason to move the dab page. PeterSymonds | talk 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If the battle never happened, the article on the village would still exist. If someone types "Towton", they would probably be looking for the town as opposed to if someone types the "Battle of Towton". Which is completely different. It's utterly inane to keep the page like this just because most people associate the toponym with the battle. Most people associate Hastings with the Battle of Hastings and Gallipoli with the Battle of Gallipoli. Surely, someone with a neuron in their head shouldn't expect to be directed to a battle of a city by typing in the city's name. The disambiguation is just stupid anyway. The town might as well be moved to Towton because either way, the idiot audacious enough to expect the battle will still have to make one extra click to the battle's page whether they come across the town or the disambiguation page since a disambiguation page is absolutely unnecessary in this scenario. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and in future, refrain from calling anyone an idiot (even hypothetically). The page stats show that a little over 50% of people searched "Towton" to find "Battle of Towton" (just under 120 "idiots" a month). Therefore, the Towton page nearly evenly balances those searching for the village, and those searching for the battle. That's why the disambiguation should stay. The stats prove it. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone an idiot and I've read the civility guideline already. I just said that anyone to do so and expect the Battle is an idiot which I stand by. And how exactly do you measure these statistics? And if someone is really so stupid to expect the battle, they will still have to go via an extra link to get to the battle whether or not there's a disambiguation page. Now that's even stupider. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The statistics are measured by the article traffic, generated by how many access the page. The traffic was developed into actual statistics by Henrik (talk · contribs). I'm sorry if I appeared to be either patronising or offensive, I had no intention of being so. My argument is that there are only two lines of text on the village article: the fact that it's a village, and its best known attribute, the battle. This is why I suggested keeping the disambiguation page, because the traffic is split evenly between those looking for the village and those looking for the battle. However, I see your point, and I'm willing to accept defeat if you want to get an administrator to take a look (pick one from Category:Administrators). I hope we can put our differences aside and not let this affect anything. PeterSymonds | talk 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no differences and I wouldn't call a defeat, just a resolution. I'll ask an admin to move the page. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

H'mmm....

It was at this battle that Sir David Ap Mathew saved the life of Edward IV. Once King, Edward granted Sir David Ap Mathew permission to use 'Towton' on the Mathew family crest.

Are you sure? No offence to the author, but this isn't in any other secondary texts. Who the shoes is David ap Mathew?! I note there's no mention of this fortuitous event in the main battle article.... Basket _Feudalist 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Towton. 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/20151117040516/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11129806&c=LS24+9BF&d=16&e=62&g=6455656&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=0&s=1439733323236&enc=1 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11129806&c=LS24+9BF&d=16&e=62&g=6455656&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=0&s=1439733323236&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) 10:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)