Talk:Dent, Cumbria

CCHT external link
This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2022

 * 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  Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Dent, Cumbria → Dent, South Lakeland – Per WP:PRECISE, Dent (fell) is also in Cumbria and I don't think this qualifies for WP:Partial disambiguation which is only rarely used as its use has been controversial. apart from a spike on 4 January the village appears to get less that 10x the views as the hill[|Dent_(fell)] which is likely to mean it doesn't qualify for partial disambiguation. Yes I agree readers are unlikely to know the district but firstly every place that is duplicated in a county has this issue such as Hutton Roof, South Lakeland v Hutton Roof, Eden, secondly WP:UKPLACE says to use ceremonial county such as Halling, Kent but then says "When further disambiguation is required, districts should be used" like Belmont, Sutton. Further disambiguation is needed in this case because there are multiple places in Cumbria called "Dent". When moved readers were taken to Dent so readers could fine the right one quickly especially given the location of both places such as nearby towns were given. Note this article was originally at Dent (Lonsdale) until it was moved in 2008.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "South Lakeland" is not ideal for a place that's quintessentially a Dales village. Dent Fell is obscure, Dent village isn't. I'd leave things as they are, personally. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please look again at the page views you link above. Even ignoring the spikes, the village has more views than the fell every day. Taking three spike-free months towards the end of last year, the fell had an average of 4 daily views, and the village had 23. This is the opposite of your claim. (Possibly I have misunderstood and you are appealing to some guideline that says a primary topic needs to have 10x the number of views as the non-primary, and in this case it's only 6x?? But I don't see such a guideline in your linked articles.) Monxton (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Partial disambiguation has always been controversial and the consensus in 2019 was that they can be used but the threshold is higher than base name primary topics and this has been controversial ever since so I don't think 6x is enough to meet the higher threshold for a PDAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. So you're stating that the evidence for an already-disambiguated topic to be considered primary should be greater than for a base topic. However the claim that 10x the number of page views would be a sufficient threshold for that but not 6x the number of page views is your personal opinion. Monxton (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:INCDAB says "the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation" and before that the rule was (more or less) than they weren't allowed at all.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for these arguments being out of order. What follows is my original objection to the move, to which Crouch, Swale's reply is above. (I changed some tenses, because that was a response to a move that had already been made, not to a proposed move).
 * This move was requested on the grounds that Dent (fell) is also within Cumbria, and so Dent, Cumbria is ambiguous.
 * I disagree because:
 * the village of Dent is the primary topic for Dent, Cumbria. The village of Dent is a quite well-known tourist destination of considerable historic significance. The article is at #649 of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Popular pages. The fell does not appear in the top 1000 articles.
 * the preferred disambiguator for English placenames is the Ceremonial County, which is Cumbria. It is correct that Dent village is within the South Lakeland district, but I would argue that district councils are not common knowledge among English people, while ceremonial counties are.
 * under the proposed redirection, a reader who attempts the WP standard for English placenames and enters "Dent, Cumbria" would be taken to the United Kingdom section in the middle of a long disambiguation page for all Dent articles. This would be acceptable if the reader had entered just "Dent", which is clearly ambiguous, but not "Dent, Cumbria".
 * the article Listed buildings in Dent, Cumbria and the category Dent, Cumbria related to the village would become inconsistent with the article they relate to.

I would prefer the article above the village to stay as-is, and a hatnote placed in the Dent, Cumbria article for readers looking for information about the fell. Monxton (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * South Lakeland will be abolished next year (but Cumbria will still exist). So if the article is moved now, will it have to be moved again (to Dent, Westmorland and Furness)?  I would leave it as it is.--Mhockey (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. I think this is OK as a partial disambiguation given the primacy of the village, particularly as the other "Dent" isn't a place name but a fell, and hence wouldn't normally be named "Dent, Cumbria" anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A hill is still a place and "Dent, Cumbria" may be the preferred qualifier if unique in Cumbria.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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.