Talk:Ipswich

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. The Supporter's long-term significance arguments based primarily on current populations have been sufficiently rebutted by the Opposition from Roxy the dog and Crouch, Swale, such that the largely unrebutted usage arguments (Certes does attempt to do so but the football club isn't merely called "Ipswich" and is therefore not relevant to the analysis, and even on his numbers the English city has the majority of pageviews) of the Opposition show that the primary topic continues to be the English city. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation: For the last 365 days, views for the present article Ipswich are about 216,000, and for City of Ipswich (Australia) it is about 18,000, and for Ipswich, Queensland it's about 54,000 views, and for Ipswich (suburb), Queensland it is about 10,000. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose: It turns out that the second paragraph of
  Ipswich, England would get, but the views I've quoted tend to support keeping the primary topic as the city in England. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is that the primary topic is clearly more populous, unlike Ipswich where the Queensland city has about 50,000 more inhabitants than the English town. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Certes's 13:49 post, below, provides further factual information. The question is whether we decide based on population, article viewership, date of origin, perceived "notability", etc. It's a judgment call. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SHB2000: Is the Ipswich in Australia more populous? The figure you gave below is for the local government area not the settlement, GeoNames says the population of the settlement is 2958. For example for Stafford, the town it is 70,145 but the LGA is 136,867. For Ipswich the individual town is 151,240, the urban areas is 185,300 but the LGA/unparished area is only 139,642. Ipswich LGA in Australia is clearly more populous but the individual settlement may well be less so, see this comment. Ipswich LGA in Australia includes other settlements while Ipswich LGA in Suffolk doesn't cover all of the town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Although local government areas don't necessarily correlate with cities, Ipswich is a rare case where it does (i.e. Ipswich + suburbs, just like any other Australian city). GeoNames might be confusing it with Ipswich (suburb), Queensland, which in the case of Ipswich, forms only the central business district. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nom. Clearly not the primary topic, DAB should be moved here. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Let's be sensible and have the town after which all the other towns are named as the primary topic- Roxy the dog 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for Ipswich, Suffolk per 162 below – a marginal case. Daily page views/incoming links are Ipswich (England) 691/3,370; Ipswich, Massachusetts 197/477; Ipswich, Queensland 104/1,489. Ipswich Town F.C. beats them all but it's unclear how many readers expect to find that article using just "Ipswich". Location-independent search results are split between England and U.S. I've fixed about 80 links to "Ipswich" meaning the Australian city but very few for U.S. or F.C. We don't always give the base name title to the first place to use it: Boston is named for Boston, Lincolnshire. Certes (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't take the football club as a competitor for the name as the club is based in the town so

  WP:DABCONCEPT may apply, if looking for the FC you would follow a link in the lead though none currently exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support per the nominator and Certes. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The proposed title is not advisable; per
  Ipswich, Suffolk would be the preferred disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Roxy the dog and the observation by RCraig09. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Ipswich in Suffolk appears to be primary by long-term significance and ahead by usage. Ipswich is the capital and largest settlement in Suffolk and its also the seat of the Suffolk district of
  WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  See https://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/LGA33960 for data on Ipswich, QLD. Ipswich, Queensland needs an update, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Roxy and RCraig09. The namesake of the other towns should be the primary article.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the proposal as it stands as Ipswich, England doesn't accord with
  WP:UKPLACE. However, have nothing against Ipswich, Suffolk. A demotion for Ipswich (UK), I suppose. But as a Wikipedia reader, I've found that arriving on a disambiguation page and seeing the alternatives laid out can of itself be enlightening. Rupples (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Oppose I can see the sense of, and agree to, Ipswich Suffolk and believe that it would not add any difficulty to a wiki user's research. Otherwise it stays as is. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We now have a few !votes (including mine) which oppose Ipswich, England per UKPLACE but would support (or at least not oppose) Ipswich, Suffolk. How do we best deal with this option? Can we repurpose this RM, or would it be better to make a technical close and start again, clearly proposing Ipswich, Suffolk? Certes (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the oppose is only to the specific suggestion of "Ipswich, England" as opposed to the issue really relevant namely primary topic then I'd take it as a neutral !vote. Normally if the target it incorrect its best to write something like "Support Ipswich, Suffolk" if supporting no primary topic or write "Oppose"... if moved move to Ipswich, Suffolk" if opposing to the move because we think the town in England is primary but pointing out where it should go if it has to be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per PAGEVIEWS. No objection to a primary redirect to Ipswich Suffolk. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]