Talk:Bury

I assume that bury is cognate with the German burg. Can anyone confirm this? Bastie 01:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2018

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 the pages to the requested titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Bury (disambiguation) → Bury
• Bury → Bury, Greater Manchester

– There is no clear primary topic here, while this is more significant than the other places called just "Bury" the name is too ambiguous for it to be primary. Leigh is a DAB rather than being about the one that's by far the largest-Leigh, Greater Manchester. While the main Google mainly returns the place in GM, a Google images search returns other things. A Google Books search returns mainly returns Bury St Edmunds (which gets more views than Bury, GM) and Burial. Similar issues have been debated for Wells, Nice, Settle, Barking, Yelling and Steep. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support and agree there's no clear primary topic. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is the primary topic, clearly the most important. The other meanings are either associated with this town or small obscure places. Leigh should be considered on its own merits. Google books might be a bit wonky, or their search criteria might not be the same as Wikipedia criteria for determining primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  There aren't just small places, there's lots of other meanings, like those that I pointed out above, Newport is also a DAB even though the city in Wales is the 3rd largest in Wales. I doubt that a term this common would have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage or long term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I also agree there is no clear primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - No clear primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:48, 20 August 2018 (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.

Incoming wikilinks

There are now over 1,000 wikilinks to the disambiguation page Bury. (That's about 20% of all such errors on Wikipedia.) I checked a sample, all of which refer to Bury, Greater Manchester. If you really must this article away from its base name, please fix all resulting mis-directed links. Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly have opposed this move had I seen the discussion in time. The place in Greater Manchester (population 78,000) is the clear WP:PTOPIC; as demonstrated by the fact that the move broke 1,086 links, every one of which looks correct. Narky Blert (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think all the links are for the place in GM, and I will start fixing the links in a few hours when dabsolver starts working. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Seven of the links were for Bury F.C. (though Bury is its common metonym). I've fixed those. I also would have opposed the move had I been aware of the discussion. Certes (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed 3 that were for Bury St Edmunds, its difficult to tell by looking at the recent changes linked for "Bury, Greater Manchester" for links to that page if there were also some for Burial or the dictionary word. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And ones for Cambridgeshire and West Sussex. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this was a poor move. It should be reversed. The town of Bury is a clear primary topic over the other entries. @Dekimasu: please could you reopen the discussion?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. The links have all been cleaned up at this point, so on one hand the issue raised here has already been dealt with, and on the other it's difficult to determine what the links indicated; additionally, concerns that dab links would be created aren't generally an adequate rationale for opposing a move. That leaves the discussion above (the results of which were fairly clear) and the underlying original question of whether there is a primary topic. Rather than reopen the previous discussion, I think it would be better to say that a new one should be allowed at any time. I did not know there was discussion ongoing here, and it seems likely that others have packed up and moved on as well. Reopening the old discussion might be more likely than before to end up at no consensus, but maybe a new discussion with someone making a strong argument in favor of a primary topic could reach a clear consensus one way or the other. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

One way to tell is using the recent changes linked, which I did with links to Bury, Greater Manchester and I also did links to Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Burial to see when BD2412 fixed them with AWB, I checked for errors, of which I found 3 that I could detect, but there could be others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone who started on Wikipedia mostly doing extensive cleanup for WP:DPL, I have to say that whether the discussion reached the best possible conclusion does not have much to do with the volume of wikilinks involved. It's important to understand as well that links to disambiguation pages should be cleaned up whenever possible, but links to disambiguation pages are not errors on their face and the links are not broken–readers are sent to navigation pages that get them where they intended to go. We used to regularly have over 2000 pages with over 100 links to disambiguation pages in our database dumps; now that the database dumps list pages with 1 (!) link, there might be a tendency to forget that new dab links are created through various appropriate processes all the time, and one of the main ways is necessarily through move requests that have to do with primary topic determinations.

In this case, about 200 links off the top were from transclusions of Template:Greater Manchester, and 60 more were from Template:Public housing in the United Kingdom, so those were fixed in a couple of edits by Crouch, Swale. I don't know what other templates were involved, but there was a good-faith effort made by editors who supported the move to clean up a significant number of the new dablinks as was requested by Certes. Thanks, of course, to anyone else who volunteered help. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases I fix all the links shortly after the discussion, I didn't do them all immediately as there were so many, anyway the fact that the links were apparently correct isn't necessarily a strong argument for a PT, however it is evidence. I think there was clear enough consensus that this was not the PT, never mind a lack of consensus that it is the PT (which up to a point I believe there needs to be a level of consensus for a PT, not a lack of one, although that is disputed). @Amakuru: you're welcome to start a new RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there were 831 links listed the first day this went on the list. It was down to zero three days later. Dekimasuよ! 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would point out Somerton which was about the pop 4,697 town, not the pop 14,287-Somerton, Arizona or the pop 33,931 Somerton, Philadelphia but there was 4 for Somerton, Oxfordshire and 1 for Somerton, Victoria [1]. 19:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouch, Swale (talk • contribs)

@Crouch, Swale: given that this RM only closed last week it makes more sense for us to relist and discuss on the original RM rather than open a new one so soon. It doesn't seem like there's a clear consensus to move at this stage. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The last RM was closed as "move the pages to the requested titles at this time, per the discussion below", see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. I think that guideline would appear to suggest filing a new RM but the closer of the new RM should take into account 15 year title. However I'll post a question on that page's talk page about this. If it had been a no consensus then re opening I think is more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Question at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#THREEOUTCOMES and post move chalenges. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: I wasn't talking so much about the incoming links, I just don't agree with the move in the first place, so because both myself and Narky have indicated that we don't agree with it, I'm asking you relist the above discussion so we can make our points. Asking me to file a new move request is not fair because then the new location of the page is the status quo. Bear in mind this page has been stable at thos title for 15 years, surely it is reasonable to allow the debate to reach a conclusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think the burden should be on getting a consensus that there is a primary topic. In other words, "no consensus" means that the disambiguation should be at the base title, and if there had been a primary topic, failure to get a consensus that reconfirmed the primary topic would imply moving the dab to the base, i.e. a "no consensus" discussion resulting in a move. So, there is no concern about starting from the "status quo" here as there would be if the debate were simply over what the best title for the topic was, rather than a debate over whether the topic was primary, with no debate over what the best name is. In other words there is consensus that "Bury" is the best name so there is no concern with falling back to a status quo that was different, like "Boury". So given that, "fairness" of the starting point doesn't come into play, and I'd do this based on what was most convenient. Given that, I might consider opening an RM to reverse the previous close, but with the closing admin instructed to treat it as a relisting, i.e. all !votes submitted in the previous RM given equal consideration in the new RM, so no requirement to re-vote. Kind of a creative WP:IAR solution. If this were in the US, then WP:USPLACE would come into play and there would be no doubt that the previous close was correct. Also noting from page views that some might argue for Burial being the primary topic, and readers residing outside the UK might be "astonished" upon being redirected to the Manchester suburb rather than burial. See the open RM at Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation). wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I was tempted to request a move review. However, the closer was clearly correct to interpret the minimal input received as consensus to move, and the only matter which could be reviewed is whether the debate should have remained open longer. Perhaps we should have a more widely advertised RM, making an extra effort to avoid the issue of which default option applies by reaching a consensus. Certes (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A move review would be inappropriate because the move was closed based on the evidence "at this time". 4 (including me the nom) supported and 1 opposed, the discussion had been open for over 9 days when the standard is 7. Not much evidence was put forward that the place in GM was primary and I had given evidence and similar examples that it wasn't. If new evidence comes to light it should probably go in a new RM to see if a case can be made for the place in GM to be the PT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: the close was correct as it stood, no doubt about that, but given that more information and several more interested parties have come forth shortly after the close, it should be reopened. Dekimasu's decision to deny my request for a courtesy relist is both surprising and disappointing, and I'm not sure what to do next. Crouch I'm also not sure why you think it would be inappropriate. Surely you want a proper debate on this and for the correct outcome to be reached? There is clearly more to discuss.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

One reason for the late surge of interest is that the move automatically added Bury to the "to do" lists of some editors who deal with disambiguation pages and had previously overlooked this page. Certes (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether one town is more important than another aside, is still my opinion that having any location as a primary topic would violate WP:ASTONISH. People are likely to type in "bury" when searching for "burial". It should be a permanent disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

People are likely to type in "bury" when searching for "burial" I can't imagine anything less likely myself, than typing bury into the search box when researching burial.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Dekimasu has decided to deny it, just that the way to contest a move outcome that was closed correctly with appropriate consensus should be a new request. I can't think of any other examples but I'm pretty sure that if a move discussion is closed correctly with enough participation and someone wants to add their view, it should go in a new RM. As pointed out the closer should take the 15 year PT into account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Respectfully, that's incorrect. RMs are closed when the discussion has reached a conclusion and yes, it appeared that way last week when Dekimasu closed it, but now more information and several more people have come forward it is clear the discussion was not yet over. If I was the closing admin in this situation, and I thought there was a genuine chance of a different result from the one I closed with, I would not hesitate to do a relist. That's the normal part of consensus building.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  If you think a relist would be better then that's fine, Dekimasu can relist it, I just think its cleaner and less complicated to start a new RM, this would mean a new consensus from when it was moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: @Dekimasu: How do you think we should resolve this, should we re open or relist? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page hits in June: [[2]]-Bury and some sub topics [[3]]-views for topics just called "Bury" [[4]]-views for significant topics not called just "Bury". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My main issue with this is that although Bury St Edmunds is called "Bury" colloquially by people in the area, I don't think it's widely understood as such in the wider world. If you lived in Cornwall and told someone you were travelling to Bury, I think they'd assume you meant the one near Manchester. And as for burial, I think we usually try not to consider topics that are reffered to by a WP:DICDEF but which are not really plausible as search targets. Like I said above, I severely doubt that anyone would type "Bury" into the search box when looking for details on burial, but that's one thing that's hard to assess.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was just between Bury, GM and Bury St E. then I'd strongly be against making "Bury" a DAB page but with a variety of full matches and PTMs it becomes more difficult to make a case for a PT. Interestingly I'd note that while Bury St Edmunds hosts an article on the town, St Edmundsbury hosts an article on the district, even though Tunbridge Wells redirects to Royal Tunbridge Wells with the district at Borough of Tunbridge Wells. It might be in this case that we can say the town in GM is primary for just "Bury" and we need stats to show readers are looking for "Burial" when searching for "Bury" (I wouldn't either) however the G Books may be good evidence. A Bury (ritual) and Bury, Suffolk redirect linked on the DAB per WP:DABTEST might help. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)