Talk:Anfield (suburb)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name change[edit]

This article needs moving from "Anfield, Liverpool" to "Anfield, Merseyside" to follow naming conventions. Jza84 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anfield, Liverpool. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anfield, Liverpool. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anfield, Liverpool. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2019[edit]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus for a move. There was a general consensus for a move here, and I think the policy arguments (particularly precision) back it up, but I'm not quite sure the current title Anfield (suburb) has consensus in itself. In these situations, we move to the best outcome, and then if anyone wants to propose a new RM, they are free to do so immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield, Liverpool → Anfield (suburb) – Anfield the stadium is called "Anfield" and is located in Liverpool the current title thus fails WP:PRECISION. See the similar discussion at Talk:Finsbury Park (area)#Requested move 5 September 2018 and others at User:Crouch, Swale/Local disambiguation. "Anfield, Liverpool" should then be redirected to the stadium its self similar to the others. While in the United States (and up to a point in Australia and Canada) settlements often have higher level units put after a comma in difference to WP:COMMONNAME this isn't the case in England. I'm not sure if "district", "area" or "suburb" is best but Talk:Perth Airport (suburb)#Requested move 11 April 2019 used suburb and there is also Anfield (ward) but that's really just a sub topic of the suburb. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Anfield to Anfield Stadium that needs to be done anyway per WP:CRITERIA. Whether Anfield (disambiguation) should be at baseline or Anfield be a primary redirect to the stadium no view. Re the move proposed, no view. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' this frankly crazy idea. Probably move the stadium, per above. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the stadium if moved then we will need to move this since the base name is in Liverpool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only crazy idea is moving the stadium article to incorporate "stadium" as you seem to support; even Anfield (stadium) would be somewhat more palatable yet likely unwelcomed, though as wikipedia also works on the basis of assigning clear primary topic article titles to the respective articles, then even that move would be unwarranted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stadium should not be moved, it's ubiquitously known as Anfield and is the overwhelming primary topic. So with that in mind support, this current title does not adequately disambiguate. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Locally, no doubt. Even the club calls it "Anfield Stadium" sometimes: "Anfield Forever is a unique landscaped area which forms part of the walkway along 96 Avenue, next to the Main Stand at Anfield Stadium.", as does the stadium's own website. So do most travel sites. "No trip to the city is complete without a visit to Anfield Stadium, home of Liverpool Football Club." Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I initially moved this as proposed, but am relisting per a request on my talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed - the term "Anfield, Liverpool" is clearly ambiguous and if anything is more likely to refer to the stadium. As for the stadium itself, per Xezbeth is is far more commonly known simply as Anfield, and is the primary topic for the term so I would oppose any move of that. Anfield, Liverpool should become a redirect to Anfield (disambiguation). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed, the stadium is known universally as "Anfield" and never "Anfield Stadium" (apart from some odd folks who refer to Tottenham as "the Tottenham Hotspurs"!). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not true, see links above. Not all our readers know anything about football, believe it or not. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they don't, but that's alright - we have a guideline to cover that scenario, at WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT... It tells us that's not really a consideration. Primary-topic status is assessed by common usage and/or long-term significance, and the stadium has both. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're badly misreading what that section is saying - it begins "Perhaps the most commonly rejected criterion is that the primary topic should only belong to what "first comes to mind"". But this nom is about the district, not the stadium, which people keep trying to talk about; I hope the closer will ignore comments that don't address the actual issue here. Anfield (suburb) is just much worse than the current name. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well let's leave all the other issues aside then, and get down to the fundamental issue: "Anfield" is a suburb in Liverpool. "Anfield" is also a stadium in Liverpool. Thus "Anfield, Liverpool" could refer to either entity. Much like "Finsbury Park" might refer to a park in London, or it might refer to an area of London, and the area page was therefore moved from Finsbury Park, London to Finsbury Park (area). The latter title may not be as nice-looking, but it's unambiguous. So on what basis are you saying we should leave this article where it is? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the stadium is not a place, it would never be at Name, Area. The Finsbury Park move was a mistake. --В²C ☎ 00:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: The stadium is a place just like Town Ground, Heanor and even if it would not be titled "Name, Area" it still fails WP:PRECISION. And look what's at Hyde Park, London is it an area? click that link and see. In any case Stanley Park, Liverpool, Paradise Street, Liverpool, Concert Square, Liverpool and Everyman Theatre, Liverpool aren't areas just like other places that are disambiguated per WP:UKPLACE. WP:PLACEDAB says "Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)". Since you have stated that the stadium in Liverpool is primary for the base name we need to disambiguate from it. "Anfield, Liverpool" isn't the name of the suburb anymore than it is of the stadium, unlike in the US, England only uses commas to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I probably agree that a move should take place, Crouch, as the term is indeed imprecise, I do dispute the last part regarding commas. Many non-places currently are currently Disambiguated with clmmas, but that practice is contrary to WP:DAB, which requires paranthetical disambiguation, except for place names. Stadia, statues, fixed infrastructure etc, are not places, and should follow the normal naming rules. When we had an RFC on UK stations for example, there was a strong consensus to make them Sutton railway station (London) and so on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand we have differing views on disambiguation for non-settlements but at least we both agree that, even if we don't use commas for other types of places that the current title is still ambiguous and needs to be changed. WP:UKPLACE though does make reference to islands such as Jura, Scotland being disambiguated this way and there was discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland/Archive 12#More cleanup required[1]. Although WP:PLACEDAB says "With natural features, the tag normally appears in parentheses, as in Eagle River (Colorado)" but it then says "Specific pre-existing national conventions may take precedence though.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there is no reason or advantage for such a national convention in the case of English geographical features. It doesn't particularly match real-life usage in the country, no more so than US topics, anyway. It's just a poorly thought-through anomaly, and one that should be fixed for consistency with other areas of the Wiki, only that I haven't got around to fighting the vested interests promoting it yet... All that said, you're quite right about the fact that this is ambiguous, though... we should never be using the quirks of Wikipedia naming conventions as a means of disambiguating topics... readers will not be aware that "Finsbury Park, London" can't mean the park because we don't name articles that way. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stadiums are not places and don't get titled as Name, Area. Anfield, Liverpool clearly refers to a place or area or neighborhood within Liverpool, not a stadium. Based on page view stats the stadium is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Anfield, which is consistent with WP:PRECISE, and so this article should stay where it is accordingly. --В²C ☎ 00:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Clarified. --В²C ☎ 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per B2C. Calidum 02:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted B2C's argument isn't correct and WP:PRECISE overrides anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru and I have already proven you wrong about the place issue. and WP:PRECISE specifically calls out primary topic cases like this as exceptions to requiring unambiguous titles. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, as noted many other places are disambiguated this way and "Anfield, Liverpool" clearly fails WP:PRECISE since it doesn't distinguish from the stadium, "Anfield, Liverpool" is not a valid term for a primary topic since its not the name of the suburb anymore than its the name of the stadium. "Anfield, Liverpool" doesn't define the topic because of the stadium. Of course it needs moving, where to is another question. Yes you're correct that primary topics aren't disambiguated such as the base name Anfield per WP:PRECISE but the suburb needs disambiguation from it so it is required since "Anfield, Liverpool" isn't an alternative name, but rather incomplete disambiguation and could mean either the stadium in Liverpool called "Anfield" or the suburb in Liverpool called "Anfield". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we agree "Anfield, Liverpool" is not the name of the stadium. That means there is no conflict with the name of the stadium when we disambiguate the place like that. Furthermore, if we did disambiguate the stadium, it would be "Anfield (stadium)" or "Anfield (Liverpool stadium)" or "Anfield (Liverpool)", but not "Anfield, Liverpool", so there is not even a potential conflict there. In short, this is the only Anfield, Liverpool, which, by the way, is referred like that in reliable sources, like this one. --В²C ☎ 19:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anfield, Liverpool" is the name of neither entities. As I noted stadiums are sometimes disambigauted this way such as Town Ground, Heanor. But in any case even if we did not allow stadiums to be disambiguated this way that would not prevent "Anfield, Liverpool" from being incomplete disambiguation, as per the 2nd half of Amakuru's post "All that said, you're quite right about the fact that this is ambiguous, though". This is because readers and editors wouldn't necessarily be aware of a rule even if it existed (which there isn't AFAIK). Consider another example, Georgia (U.S. state) where Georgia (state) redirects to the DAB page and not to the US state even though one could easily assume that anyone who enters exactly "Georgia (state)" is likely disambiguating from the country especially since Washington (state) and New York (state) are titled that way. There are some cases where names are used that don't disambiguate but these are actual terms not WP qualifiers such as Shuna Island (which its called that by the OS) and the Scottish islands book notes that that name is sometimes used to distinguish from the other one even though its also an island simply called "Shuna". "Anfield, Liverpool" on the other hand isn't a term but rather a WP qualifier and the source is only saying where it is, not using "Anfield, Liverpool" as a term anymore than saying "Mercury is a planet" and this makes reference to the stadium. If you look at Category:Areas of Liverpool we have 16 cases where "Liverpool" is used for settlements but just in Category:Geography of Liverpool there are 21 cases where "Liverpool" is used for non-settlements. As noted settlements in England use commas simply for disambiguation not an alternative name unlike for US settlements and possibly English churches and streets. If the "Liverpool" was part of the name it would be "Anfield Liverpool" similar to King's College London and St Mary's School Ascot, by titling it with a comma we are saying that its not part of the name. In any case WP:PLACEDAB says Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin).. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have opposed above, but might accept Anfield (Liverpool suburb) if that will pass the disam police. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the "Liverpool" is needed at all in the title since I don't think Anfield, New Brunswick could also be described as a suburb but the main issue here is disambigating it from the stadium currently at "Anfield" so I'd accept Anfield (Liverpool suburb). However if the stadium was to be moved then arguably the suburb could become a broad concept article but I don't think that's necessary either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this isn't really a proposal, you're just thinking out loud, but a broad concept article covering what? The suburb and the stadium aren't sufficiently conceptually connected for there to be any value in an article describing both, which is what would be required for a broad concept. As I recall, some people argued over at the New York saga that the New York (state) article should be at the base name as a broad concept, since the New York City is an entity contained within the state, and somewhat talked about in the state article. That didn't wash though, and I think the same objections would prevent us having an Anfield suburb article which also broad-concepted the stadium.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a RM at this RM and the discussion here where there was consensus to move somewhere, I suggest that this is moved per WP:THREEOUTCOMES without prejudice for a RM to determine the final destination. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I had closed as "no concensus", but reverted that close since I got an objection. I think that some of the other proposals here might need a new discussion, especially if they affect articles such as Anfield that have not been notified of this discussion. I think it will be hard to dig a consensus out of this, other than that people are mostly not happy with the status quo. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message at Talk:Anfield#Retitling although I don't expect the stadium article will need to be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Sefton Park (district) and Sefton Park, would we prefer Anfield (district) to match that and Old Trafford (district)? but as noted there is Anfield (ward) which could be described as a district, though as noted its a sub topic of the suburb. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noooo! A definite Oppose from me on that suggestion. The term "district" formally refers to local government areas (see Districts of England), which in this case is the City of Liverpool metropolitan borough, not one small area of that. We had a similar discussion about the "districts of London", which is why we now refer to them as Areas of London and Finsbury Park (area), not "Finsbury Park (district)". Using districts to refer to subdivisions of a city doesn't seem to have widespread usage in the real world, and also suffers from the above confusion. Better to stick with "suburb" or "area". I'm also not opposed to "Liverpool suburb" per Johnbod, if that's what gains consensus. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree I indeed would usually expect "district" to mean a subdiversion and not a suburb. Is it worth starting specific RMs for Sefton Park and Old Trafford if/when we get this resolved? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a good idea. I'd support a move away from those titles. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation would indeed be suburb but Nilfanion thinks "suburb has no clear meaning in the UK and worse its POV-laden", although a move to any of the suggested destinations would be better than the status quo anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clear there is no consensus so can't be approved. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaskedSinger: thanks for your comment, and welcome to Wikipedia - it's always great to have new users around willing to help a hand. Regarding consensus, you should have a read of the WP:CONSENSUS page... it has a subtly different meaning on Wikipedia, compared with normal usage, in that whatever comments people make must be assessed against the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine how valid that comment is. In this case an important policy is the one you can find at WP:PRECISE, which says that an article title must be precise enough to identify the topic concerned. The question therefore hinges on whether "Anfield, Liverpool" is a precise title for this suburb, or if it is actually an ambiguous term because it could refer to the Anfield stadium as well, which is also in Liverpool. If you have any thoughts to offer on this question, either that the title is precise enough, or that it isn't, such thoughts would be gratefully received! Thanks, and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Amakuru thanks so much for the kind words. What I was saying was that given the robust discussion on the subject, it would appear difficult if not impossible to make a ruling one way or another. So many valid points made for both points of view. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: I suppose if this is moved to Anfield (district) or closed as no consensus then I suppose we should maybe wait a few months (and possibly review if "district" or "suburb" should be used in text) and then see if there's consensus to move Old Trafford, Sefton Park and this to use "suburb" but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone proposed moving it to (district)? I don't think I'd support that, for the aforementioned reasons. It's not a district. Area would be fine, matching Finsbury Park, if suburb is vetoed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Completely unsuitable given that the article does not describe Anfield as a suburb, indeed the word “suburb” does not occur in the article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-close comment[edit]

  • Bad move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: there was a consensus that the previous title was inappropriate but not consensus on if "suburb" was the best qualifier (which was specifically stated in the close probably because of you're comment about the word "suburb" not appearing in the article) if you think we should use "district" instead then feel free to file a new RM now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is this?! Leave alone. Too many fancy spins these days. Leave as Anfield with a sub line disambig for others. Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a regular on here, I think whoever mooted for this change were completely wrong. What is the arguement that the "previous title" was inappropriate? This is Anfield (district) it's not a suburb either it's inner city. Not the point, the area was still correct as Anfield. Any confusion over the stadium should be stated in a disambig. I read some comments and I'd agree no one calls Anfield the ground 'Anfield Stadium' no one calls Anfield the district 'Anfield suburb' either! There's too much jargon and business terminology going on in to these articles right now. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2023[edit]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Anfield (Liverpool suburb) can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield (suburb) → Anfield, Liverpool – According to the above requested move, "if anyone wants to propose a new RM, they are free to do so immediately". The name needs to be changed to follow naming conventions. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the proposed name doesn't follow naming conventions. The current title may not be ideal but its better than the proposed one since Anfield is in Liverpool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the current name does follow naming conventions? I don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anfield_(suburb)&oldid=1204861278"