Talk:Newcastle

make disambiguation.--cj | talk 07:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First among Newcastles
From what I can see, there are two candidates for the status of "the" Newcastle. Assuming that it's down to these cities, I'd say that Newcastle, New South Wales is the better candidate for being the redirect from "Newcastle" - mainly because its called Newcastle. So you know, I'm not from Newcastle.Joestella 01:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Newcastle, New South Wales is Australia's seventh-largest city. It has a population of 505,369 in its own right and is called Newcastle.
 * Newcastle upon Tyne is England's 20th-largest city. It has a population of 269,500 - although this rises to 799,000 if you add in three adjacent boroughs with different names. Its name isn't Newcastle, it's Newcastle upon Tyne.


 * I would disagree with the above, primarily as it is not simply a population issue. The page "Newcastle" should link "to a primary topic that most editors agree is the primary meaning for the term" (Disambiguation) - a Google of the word "Newcastle" (at google.com) shows that 8 of the top 10 results relate to Newcastle upon Tyne, whereas only 2 appear for Newcastle, NSW. Even when you search on google.com.au, 7 of the top 10 results are for Newcastle upon Tyne.


 * With regards to the second point, Newcastle upon Tyne is most often referred to as simply "Newcastle," even by those who do not live in the area or even in England. It's airport is known as "Newcastle Airport" (not Newcastle upon Tyne Airport) and similarly its train station is known simply as "Newcastle". So I don't really see that as being a valid reason for the redirect to point to Newcastle, NSW.


 * Based on this, I have reverted your edit of the Newcastle redirect, as I think that Newcastle upon Tyne warrants the Newcastle redirect as it googles much higher than Newcastle, NSW. Perhaps the wording of disambig text on the Newcastle upon Tyne page should be changed to reflect the fact that Newcastle, NSW is (perhaps) of greater importance that the rest of the articles listed at Newcastle (disambiguation).


 * If you don't agree with what I've done, before reverting my edits, please bare in mind that Newcastle should not redirect to a disambiguation page, "in other cases, where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself" (Disambiguation).Johnwalton 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just re-read that and it doesn't seem very clear. Basically, there are two ways this could go. Newcastle shouldn't link to Newcastle (disambiguation). Either Newcastle (disambiguation) should be moved to Newcastle, or, Newcastle should redirect to either Newcastle upon Tyne or Newcastle, New South Wales (I suggest the former based on the reasons above) and then there is a dablink on whichever page to Newcastle (disambiguation). Johnwalton 21:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that the user should be provided with options. I have put the two foremost (I assume) Newcastles above the others and added the disambiguation text to the Newcastle page. Joestella 05:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it like this for the time being, but I still believe that the Newcastle page should redirect to Newcastle upon Tyne. After all, Newcastle NSW was named after Newcastle upon Tyne. Hopefully other editors will contribute to this talk page and a concensus can be reached. Johnwalton 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that there are too many "Newcastles" for that term to go directly to any article. It should go to a dismbiguation page. -Willmcw 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the term "Newcastle" should redirect to a disambiguation page. As tempting as it is to have the link go to the root Newcastle upon Tyne, the fact is that there are several "Newcastles", each with significant importance and each likely to be searched for at one time or another. --Arviragus 23:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be Newcastle upon Tyne. No way should it be the Aussie one. Sorry, Joe. Newcastle in the UK is most usually called Newcastle (just as Stoke is usually Stoke, not Stoke-on-Trent or whatever) and has been since long before the Aussie Newcastle was (indirectly) named after it. James James 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My first choice: disambiguation page; second choice: NuT. Joe D (t) 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC, not from either UK or Australia. Seems best to go with the disambiguation page. That way other Newcastles can get in on the action, as well. InvictaHOG 06:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From the UK but gonna agree with the disambiguation page Robdurbar 13:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as there is not clearly a primary topic, this page should form the redirect.--cj | talk 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Newcastle (disambiguation) has the more significant history (related to the composition of the list), I am going to move it here, thus replacing Newcastle's history.--cj | talk 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so made I bit of a mess of that, but I think it's now fixed. My apologies to anyone confused by my botch. Happy editing, --cj | talk 16:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are major cities, the page as it stands just now as a disambiguation page with emphasis to the two cities is the right setup. Where I'm based/from is not important! Thanks/wangi 16:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My point, as someone that lives quite far away from both cities and has a quite neutral point of view, is that Newcastle should stay a disambiguation page. Actually, if I heard Newcastle, the first and only Newcastle I'd think about is the one on Tyne in England (well, I'm a bit into English football, so I guess it's not quite a neutral POV after all), but given the population data, disambiguation at this page looks the best possibility to me. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a disambiguation page. Both Newcastles come up about the same in Google search results. And what about Newcastle Brown Ale, rather than Newcastle the place where it's brewed, or the other Newcastle? -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it most likely should be a disambiguation page. I think there's more to evaluating the merits of the two places, though, than population size. As has been mentioned, both the football club and the beer have helped establish the location in the public memory (along with "Carrying Coals to..."), so, as someone from the States, "Newcastle" first makes me think of Newcastle upon Tyne, rather than Newcastle, NSW. But both are significant enough, I think, to warrant a disambiguation page.Adbarnhart 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Sufficient support has been expressed, and this page was made a disambiguation a while ago.--cj | talk 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For my part, as a US user, when I hear the word "Newcastle," I think of the English one. Relative population ought not matter; there are more Irishmen in metropolitan New York City than there are in all of Ireland, if we go that route. RGTraynor 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Even when you search on google.com.au, 7 of the top 10 results are for Newcastle upon Tyne." - That is absolute rubbish. I just did a search on google.com.au and the top ten pages were as follows:

1.The University of Newcastle, Australia 2.Library / University Services / The University of Newcastle, Australia 3.Newcastle Tourism - About Us 4.Welcome to Newcastle City Council's Website 5.Home (Newcastle Airport) 6.Newcastle Port Corporation 7.TE Online 8.Newcastle Knights 9.Stock Exchange of Newcastle (NSX) - Australia 10.Newcastle Australia

Each one of these sites are Australian and relating to Newcastle, NSW. Check it out for yourself: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=newcastle&meta=cr%3DcountryAU (PhillyWolf 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

This is because you used the Australian version of Google, and clicked 'pages from Australia'! Not very impartial! Try doing a Google 'pages from the UK' search and the top 10 are for NuT. Try doing a standard Google search (using google.com) and most are for NuT. I think it should go to a disambiguation page to cover all the other Newcastles, and the Newcastle-related articles (NUFC, Brown Ale, NSW tourism,etc). (Given the acronym NuT no wonder we call it 'Newcastle'!) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.55.196 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2006 (ACST).


 * IMHO, Newcastle is, as has previously been mentioned, too common a name for this to be an easy question. By far the most important Newcastle in the US is New Castle, Delaware, despite the fact that it's not even the biggest Newcastle in the US.  (Go read the article to find out why it's so historically important if you don't already know...[[Image:Teeth.png]])  That said, when I hear "Newcastle", I never hear it without context, so I don't know which Newcastle I'd think of if I did!  Some months ago, there was a very similar big to-do over at Lincoln (should it point to Lincoln, Lincolnshire?Lincolnshire?Abraham Lincoln?Lincoln, Nebraska?  etc.)  I would recommend that Newcastle be handled the same way (including with a brief etymological background at the top, as at Lincoln...I rather suspect that Newcastle-upon-Tyne was not the first town called "Newcastle"...) and then make the rest of the page read something like a dabpage, and have Newcastle (disambiguation) point then to Newcastle.  Tom e rtalk  05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside an etymology, what you suggest has already been enacted. I'm surprised at the amount of comment this relatively obscure page is attracting.--cj | talk 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been decided, but for what it's worth as someone from the U.S. I usually think of Newcastle Brown Ale first. Seriously.  Which, I might add, is not one of the listings on the Newcastle page.  In the end though my vote would have been for Newcastle-upon-Tyne with a For other uses see Newcastle (disambiguation) as well as a For the Aus province see Newcastle, New South Wales link right at the top.  Why?  I dunno, seems to make more sense that way. --Easter Monkey 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Clear case for disambiguation. Caravaca 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation. Responding to the RfC, since opinions were solicited from Americans (note that even my own nationality requires disambiguation). When I hear "Newcastle", my first thought is for Newcastle upon Tyne.   In terms of a Wikipedia redirect though, I think that "Newcastle" should go to a  disambiguation page, and from there to Newcastle upon Tyne; Newcastle, New South Wales; Newcastle Brown Ale,  etc.  Elonka 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking a typical yob American, I'd never heard of Newcastle in Australia, but Newcastle on Tyne I have, primarily because of the coals to Newcastle saying; I also know therefore that it is (or was) a center of a coal-mining district, I've come across it peripherally in various historical reading, and I think I could sort of place it on a map. I also knew that it was Newcastle on Tyne but would call it Newcastle anyway. Herostratus 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation per above (responding to the RfC). Disambiguation is not ideal, since it requires an additional step by the user, but in this case I guess it's required. If disambiguation is avoided, then the term should devolve to Newcastle on Tyne. because it is older and more famous and not that much smaller if you include the metro area.
 * Actually, Newcastle in New South Wales is a major coal mining centre as well - in fact, it exports more coal through its port than anywhere else.--cj | talk 06:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3rd contender
I notice this is and old, finished debate, but not be a troll, I would like to open a new one. There is a 3rd Newcastle which can reasonably assert equal - importance, viz. Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal, as it has similar population of around 200000, but the actual article is at the moment quite shoddy. Reliable population data for South African cities is really hard to find, the Wikipedia article List_of_largest_cities_in_South_Africa_by_population is absolute nonsense (IMHO) as it contradicts in a major way every other population source, you would care to look at. This website gives the population as 220,000 comparable to the 260,000 and 290,000 given on the articles for Newcastle, England; and Newcastle, Australia. Online, you will most likely not find nearly as much simply because mostly people are poorer and thus less-represented on the internet; this does not make the city any less notable. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Oh and the websites claims to be based on statssa but their website only seems to have municipality information that I can see (it is a horribly disorganised site). What I am pushing for is that it be listed at the top of the disambig page and not tucked away at the bottom, under "other Newcastles" 198.54.202.242 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful layout
I think it would be helpful if this page actually prioritised the Newcastles that people are more likely to be searching for... which used to be the case, but it seems that the unremitting "first amongst Newcastles" squabbling by certain parties (such as this edit) aren't really helping, nor adding anything of value to the page. Anyway, given that I've stated that I've retired from Wikipedia, I'll let someone else sort it out. :P --— Chris (blather • contribs) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah its a lot of messing about to get to the proper things. I'm gonna put a note at the top. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

newcastle united
mind adding them? seems a "tiny" bit relevant and it is a common abbreviation proof: http://www.goal.com/en/results-standings/64/premier-league/table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.147.10.35 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added as part of a new Sport section Simon Brady (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)