Talk:Elmley Castle (castle)

If the castle is on public land, it is difficult to see how to access it. At least from the West, it is surrounded by a fence with 'Private no right of way' signs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.11 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

– While the villages do get more views the villages are named after the castles. The same with the bridges. I'm not so sure if these moves are a good idea, in particular with Barnard Castle, but I'm listing it here anyway to given that option though.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 12:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Elmley Castle (castle) → Elmley Castle
 * Elmley Castle → Elmley Castle (village)
 * Hanley Castle (castle) → Hanley Castle
 * Hanley Castle → Hanley Castle (village)
 * Eamont Bridge (structure) → Eamont Bridge
 * Eamont Bridge → Eamont Bridge (village)
 * Pooley Bridge (structure) → Pooley Bridge
 * Pooley Bridge → Pooley Bridge (village)
 * Barnard Castle (castle) → Barnard Castle
 * Barnard Castle → Barnard Castle (town)
 * Comment I see that we already have Corfe Castle (disambiguation), Corfe Castle (village) and Corfe Castle (for the castle) but how many other articles would need rechecking, and does it always make sense to apply the same naming rule in every situation? What about towns named after other things, for example Windermere (the lake) and Windermere, Cumbria (town)? It sounds like a lot of work to find all the relevant articles and apply a consistent naming convention even if it seemed like a good idea. Notable beaches might be another one. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly title all that fail to gather 2/3 of views What is preventing us having understandable and recognizable titles for all where there is WP:NOPRIMARY? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Elmley Castle (castle) → Elmley Castle - pile of turf Elmley Castle (castle ruins) would be better
 * Support Elmley Castle → Elmley Castle (village)
 * Oppose Hanley Castle (castle) → Hanley Castle - pile of weeds Hanley Castle (castle ruins) would be better
 * Support Hanley Castle → Hanley Castle (village)
 * Strong oppose Barnard Castle (castle) → Barnard Castle - real castle, but real town also
 * Strong oppose Barnard Castle → Barnard Castle (town) town is more important in real world
 * Haven't looked at the bridges. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not get distracted onto the definition of castle. See Maiden Castle, Dorset for an example that's very different from, say, Caernarfon Castle. Also, regarding getting 2/3 of views in favour of something, that's not how Wikipedia !votes work - see wp:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The bridges and castles may have been there first but if there are primary topics here, they are the places named after them. Unless there are other topics, disambiguation pages are not necessary. Peter James (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this has clearly failed so relisting wasn't needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative", per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. If there's any other merit to these it would be better to nominate them individually with a proper rationale. PC78 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although that point mainly refers to substantially different topics (such as Boston, Massachusetts/Boston, Lincolnshire) when both meanings are closely relates its even more usual to put the original use at the base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, that's merely the example given. PC78 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - All of these have long term significance, so the primary consideration is views over time. It's too much of a mess to go through all of these and oppose/support each pair in the same discussion. Renominate individually any pairs where the non-primary title is clearly dominant (it gets more than two-thirds of the total views for all same-name articles). Pairs where no single article gets more than 2/3rds of the total views for all same-name articles should be individually nominated to get specific names and a DAB page placed at the base name. Safrolic (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2019 (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.