Category talk:Castleford, West Yorkshire

This category should be moved to Category:Castleford, the addition of Wakefield is superfulous and is not inline with naming policy (being as there is no need to distinguish it from other Castlefords). If anyone has the time to move it or if there is a bot available for doing this, then it should be done. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does need distinguishing, then it should be Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire.

Support move to Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire. (See en:Castleford (disambiguation)) --Foroa (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire. Wknight94 ^talk 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requestmove

There is only one major Castleford. There is one in Idaho which is far less notable and we only have two media for it. As we have done with Leeds, Boston, London etc (as appose to Leeds, West Yorkshire; Boston, Massachusetts; London, Greater London etc) can we move it simply to 'Castleford' as all further categories are? Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus against moving. As per User:Nilfanion: "no reason to change something which is stable. This is change for the sake of change, not because there is a real problem to fix." --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is the point? Disambiguated titles are not supposed to be "natural usage", they are intended to disambiguate. The present title has successfully kept images of the two Castlefords in North America out of this category, and if it works there seems no good reason to change things. The proposed move (which has been reactivated for some reason, having been met with complete apathy for two years) is unlikely to be as successful in keeping out errant images, requiring a greater level of maintenance. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skinsmoke: in this case this one is far larger than the others, probably at least 100x the others combined. As Mtaylor848 has pointed out we haven't done this with Leeds, Boston, London etc. Mansfield has a population only a bit larger than Mansfield, Ohio for example yet Mansfield isn't a DAB. The dominance is still even more so than Manchester (530,300) v Manchester, New Hampshire (109,565) even if Manchester metro is much larger. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the Yorkshire version is larger and more significant (my Yorkshire friends tell me everything in Yorkshire is always larger and more significant). My argument is, if it has worked without causing any problems sufficient for people to support the change, which has been lying there undiscussed for two years, why bother changing things at this stage? It rather smacks of making the change just for the sake of doing it. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because over 100x is surely enough to have a primary topic. As I pointed out why shouldn't we also disambiguate Mansfield and Manchester?, see Commons:Category disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not Wikipedia. Here it is better if the main name is a disambigunation. Bots automatically put new pictures from Category:Castleford, Idaho in Category:Castleford and no one will notice, as there are not enough people, who do this work. As long as Category:Castleford is a disambiguination we will notice this, as the category is then oautomatically in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. --Kersti (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kersti Nebelsiek: yes this may not be Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that we don't have primary topics here for example Category:Brierley v Category:Brierley, Gloucestershire. As evidence as to why this Castleford is the primary topic:

It has a population of 40210 compared to 226 for Idaho and Ontario doesn't have an article at WP or a cat here and probably has a population of less than 100.
The English location gets significantly more views than the others combined.
This one has hundreds of files while the Idaho one only has 2 and Ontario doesn't have any.
It is usual to refer to places in the US and Canada with the state but not in England so people would probably expect to find them at that location anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't tell me, how we possibly could find bot moved media relating to the American location in category as crowded als "Castleford, West Yorkshire" is now. --Kersti (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This category is emphatically not crowded. Its easy enough to tell all the files in this category are for the UK, as all but one are Geograph uploads. If you don't just want to assume Geograph filename = UK, look at the group then you can use the geocoding.

I would not worry about bot uploads for Castleford, Idaho, we have never had them! A much greater risk is identifying the file as being of Castleford when it doesn't show the place at all. Both bots and humans can make that error, and that is true for 3 of the files currently in the category. You aren't going to get me worried about a hypothetical bot risk when there's a very real categorisation problem already there.

However, there is no reason to change something which is stable. This is change for the sake of change, not because there is a real problem to fix.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.