Talk:Norton, Worcestershire

	Worcestershire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article has been written in good faith, but has been tagged for lack of required information. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded as flagging of areas that need attention. Worcestershire Wikipedians may be able to help improve this article. --Kudpung (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is firmly against this proposal; not moved. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PDAB because there is also one near Evesham[3][4]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Support. Peter James (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article is about the village, not the civil parish Jeni ^(talk) 09:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better way to disambiguate then? Maybe something like Norton, Norton Juxta Kempsey or Norton (near Worcester) and Norton, Norton Juxta Kempsey or Norton (near Evesham) then? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:UKPLACE, Norton, Worcestershire (as clear primary topic and the fact that the other Norton doesn't even have an article) and Norton, east Worcestershire if it ever gets created, though I'm not sure it's really notable. Jeni ^(talk) 17:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've helped you out by creating the
Norton Juxta Kempsey parish page - the current Norton page should never have been pretending to be the parish anyway. Jeni ^(talk) 17:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I agree now that
Aston upon Trent (name of parish). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This page clearly is the primary topic of the Norton, Worcestershire title - the other Norton is barely a hamlet to the north of Evesham. We have villages at the name of the village, not the name of the civil parish. The village is called Norton, as per the exact source you've claimed as definitive for previous villages. Jeni ^(talk) 17:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We usually don't assign primary topics to partial disambiguation and the other one was also a parish in its own right. Yes the name of the village is "Norton" but "Norton Juxta Kempsey" seems to be an alternative name for the village ("Juxta" means near thus the name means "Norton near
WP:NATURAL however I'm fine with using ~~Norton, east Worcestershire~~ Norton, west Worcestershire (or similar like central Worcestershire). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is for the village and the parish, so "Norton Juxta Kempsey" is acceptable as a name, but if it has to be just "Norton" it would be disambiguated as "central Worcestershire" or something similar. It's the other Norton that would be east Worcestershire (or for an article about the parish, Norton and Lenchwick). Peter James (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has never been about the parish so I'm not sure where you got that from. Jeni ^(talk) 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged with the new article. Peter James (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you're now suggesting that the village article is completely removed?! Jeni ^(talk) 20:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, just that we don't need separate articles about the village and the parish. Peter James (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The village is very very different to the civil parish though. Jeni ^(talk) 22:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The village and parish have variants of the same name, that is to say because of "Norton Juxta Kempsey" meaning "Norton near Kempsey", see the discussion at Commons:Category talk:Llangelynin. The CP of the one near Evesham on the other hand does have a distinct name-Norton and Lenchwick and therefore probably should have a separate article to the village. I agree with Peter that there should only be 1 article for the one near Worcester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jeni. There doesn't appear to be any particular pressing need to move this - there is no article on the Evesham locality and it looks like the primary topic for the term anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we don't usually use partial disambiguation, see
WP:PDAB also noting that the one near Evesham seems to be bigger than this one. I also don't see a problem with Norton, west Worcestershire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that Norton isn't in west Worcestershire Jeni ^(talk) 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The very first sentence of
WP:PDAB says "An ambiguous title is one shared by more than one use on Wikipedia." The other Norton in Worcestershire does not have an article on Wikipedia. Therefore the current title is not ambiguous and does not need to be changed. Opera hat (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And
WP:PRIMARYRED says "The existing article does not automatically become the primary topic" even if its the only article currently on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That section you link simply doesn't match usual practice at all. Disambiguation pages are for navigation between articles, not for topics which don't exist. There appears to have been an abortive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_44#Place of the disambiguation page when there is only one blue-linked article, but I don't see any consensus there for the new paragraph which was added. Many preferred the status quo, that disambiguators are between articles, not between nonexistent topics. I have removed it for now, since it simply doesn't match practice or what really happens at RMs such as this one. THanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now restored the paragraph, as I was probably over-hasty in removing it, but my point still stands. The Norton near Evesham is so insignificant that it's fair to assume it will never have an article. And even if it does, this one is primary over it. And your assertion above regarding incomplete disambiguation is one that is unresolved. Thriller (album) is the best-known example, but in general if the case is strong enough, it's not prohibited to have an ambiguous article at a partially disambiguated name.
Note in the case of Thriller,
Thriller (Michael Jackson album) though we do have Kiss (band) despite Kiss (South Korean group) so you're correct in that PDAB is unresolved. Its also indeed quite plausible that a reader will actually search for "Norton, Worcestershire" due to the fact that its a common place name. That said I don't see how the one near Evesham is "so insignificant", it seems like its about the same size as the one near Worcester (see Google Maps). The Thriller example might point to moving but allowing "Norton, Worcestershire" to still redirect here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.