Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Bolton

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bolton

To disambiguate to Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (or Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) or Category:Bolton, Metropolitan Borough of Bolton) (and move Category:Bolton (disambiguation) to Category:Bolton) there are many names unrelated to this one, see talk for earlier discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC) By unrelated I mean they don't derive from this like London/London, Ontario or Paris/Paris, Texas for example. While it appears many so (such as Bolton, Connecticut), some probably don't but come from the many other small places around the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's meanings are too varied not to be disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose per countless similar discussions. The Bolton at Bolton is primary topic. Correct target in event of move is difficult as well. The proposed titles fail to completely disambiguate, except for last (Bolton, MB of Bolton) which should be rejected as bonkers.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Per countless similar discussions we have established that primary topics should have a higher bar and this would seem a good example to apply this. We have Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire (city) which doesn't really disambiguate from the district with city status and you could probably make a stronger case for Wakefield as it is a cathedral city and county town unlike Bolton and there are a lot less uses of Castleford and a higher population difference even though WY and ID are unrelated. The points raised by Auntof6 (talk · contribs) are surely the case here as its easy for bots and humans to add pages for other unrelated places. Plymouth, Devon is relevant to people interested in Plymouth, MA as it is where their journey started and the name comes from (and it mentioned in the lead at w:Plymouth) while Bolton, Cumbria or Bolton, East Lothian have no relevance to this one. How does Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) fail to completely disambiguate? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of having the same debate over and over - wait for ONE to finish, there is no rush to this (and I don't get why you can't just wait!!!). Having a billion similar CFDs open just forks the discussion, and exhausts community patience. I'm not going to give a detailed rationale, or even a detailed evaluation of the case. I merely note that this one is very similar to those already open, with similar merits.

When one of these discussions actually reaches a consensus, that releases the bottle-neck - and if needed we can have a bunch of "per X" CFDs.

Opening up a new debate when there are a bunch of unresolved open ones about similar matters is basically forum-shopping. That is because if you keep rolling the dice, its possible that someone might close any one of them, in good faith and in ignorance of the other cases. That would then incorrectly have weight on the other CFDs where meaningful discussion has taken place.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the last discussion we had on this was about 8 months ago, more than enough time for the Plymouth discussion to have been completed.

There has already been consensus on similar issues or at least have been done like this for example Category:Wakefield, West Yorkshire (city), Category:Brighton, East Sussex, Category:York, England, Category:Castleford, West Yorkshire and Category:Norfolk, England. I expect that this one will likely be closed as move eventually, but not as likely as Bury. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the first set of (3) new CFD that we have opened up since New York, Georgia and Mississippi and we both have varying views on them so it can hardly be forum shopping. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree several months should be enough time to reach a conclusion. But they 'haven't closed! Seriously. WAIT. More discussion = good. More discussion venues = bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not waiting but I might be unblocked on WP soon so I don't want to be thinking too much about this and as I know that both discussions (the 3 I started and Plymouth) are likely to be successful I started it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If you get unblocked from WP, you can still edit here. You don't need to rush things through.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Above thread is off-topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth considering what has happened in other cases, but I don't think previous discussions necessarily set a definitive precedent. Some city names are definitely more unique than others, and therefore, are more likely to require disambiguation. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And this one is not even unique in etymology. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any other discussions will not set definitive precedents. However when there are several open discussions, adding more on the same sort of thing splits involvement. I consider Bolton to be a stronger primary topic contender than others with "live" discussions. The place doesn't need to be unique, but it does have to be more important than the alternatives (think England, Scotland or Germany - which are all places in the US).

Etymology is irrelevant. The fact the X in Canada is named for the X in France doesn't mean the French one takes priority because the other is named for it. The French place is more likely to be significant because its been around for longer, and that greater history is likely to translate into more significance.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely more so than Bury.

Etymology is not irrelevant and X in England is sometimes named after X in the US or X in England for example Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear/Pennsylvania, Exeter/California, Ipswich or Gainsborough, Suffolk indirectly from the one in Lincolnshire. While Woodbridge, Ontario isn't named after Woodbridge, Suffolk. I would suggest that which one is older is irrelevant as it is likely that the points about being around longer will apply to the one in Canada in the future. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology is COMPLETELY irrelevant - the fact one town has another named for it doesn't add one iota to the significance of either place. Ignore it.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same argument could also apply to stability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Stability of titles is a goal, to be balanced against other titling goals like ease-of-access, reduction of bad categorisation, conciseness or precision. Etymology means absolutely nothing to nobody (except you apparently).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If people already know something is named after then they won't be surprised to find it, if not then perhaps its a learning opportunity[1][2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Serendipitous learning is a very minor titling goal (that's part of the reality of WP browsing - find a specific article and then click links through to other articles).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: No consensus to move. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)