Talk:Bury

I assume that bury is cognate with the German burg. Can anyone confirm this? Bastie 01:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the pages to the requested titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Bury (disambiguation) → Bury
• Bury → Bury, Greater Manchester

– There is no clear primary topic here, while this is more significant than the other places called just "Bury" the name is too ambiguous for it to be primary. Leigh is a DAB rather than being about the one that's by far the largest-Leigh, Greater Manchester. While the main Google mainly returns the place in GM, a Google images search returns other things. A Google Books search returns mainly returns Bury St Edmunds (which gets more views than Bury, GM) and Burial. Similar issues have been debated for Wells, Nice, Settle, Barking, Yelling and Steep. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support and agree there's no clear primary topic. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is the primary topic, clearly the most important. The other meanings are either associated with this town or small obscure places. Leigh should be considered on its own merits. Google books might be a bit wonky, or their search criteria might not be the same as Wikipedia criteria for determining primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  There aren't just small places, there's lots of other meanings, like those that I pointed out above, Newport is also a DAB even though the city in Wales is the 3rd largest in Wales. I doubt that a term this common would have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage or long term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I also agree there is no clear primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - No clear primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:48, 20 August 2018 (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.

Incoming wikilinks

There are now over 1,000 wikilinks to the disambiguation page Bury. (That's about 20% of all such errors on Wikipedia.) I checked a sample, all of which refer to Bury, Greater Manchester. If you really must this article away from its base name, please fix all resulting mis-directed links. Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly have opposed this move had I seen the discussion in time. The place in Greater Manchester (population 78,000) is the clear WP:PTOPIC; as demonstrated by the fact that the move broke 1,086 links, every one of which looks correct. Narky Blert (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think all the links are for the place in GM, and I will start fixing the links in a few hours when dabsolver starts working. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Seven of the links were for Bury F.C. (though Bury is its common metonym). I've fixed those. I also would have opposed the move had I been aware of the discussion. Certes (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed 3 that were for Bury St Edmunds, its difficult to tell by looking at the recent changes linked for "Bury, Greater Manchester" for links to that page if there were also some for Burial or the dictionary word. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, this was a poor move. It should be reversed. The town of Bury is a clear primary topic over the other entries. @Dekimasu: please could you reopen the discussion?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. The links have all been cleaned up at this point, so on one hand the issue raised here has already been dealt with, and on the other it's difficult to determine what the links indicated; additionally, concerns that dab links would be created aren't generally an adequate rationale for opposing a move. That leaves the discussion above (the results of which were fairly clear) and the underlying original question of whether there is a primary topic. Rather than reopen the previous discussion, I think it would be better to say that a new one should be allowed at any time. I did not know there was discussion ongoing here, and it seems likely that others have packed up and moved on as well. Reopening the old discussion might be more likely than before to end up at no consensus, but maybe a new discussion with someone making a strong argument in favor of a primary topic could reach a clear consensus one way or the other. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone who started on Wikipedia mostly doing extensive cleanup for WP:DPL, I have to say that whether the discussion reached the best possible conclusion does not have much to do with the volume of wikilinks involved. It's important to understand as well that links to disambiguation pages should be cleaned up whenever possible, but links to disambiguation pages are not errors on their face and the links are not broken–readers are sent to navigation pages that get them where they intended to go. We used to regularly have over 2000 pages with over 100 links to disambiguation pages in our database dumps; now that the database dumps list pages with 1 (!) link, there might be a tendency to forget that new dab links are created through various appropriate processes all the time, and one of the main ways is necessarily through move requests that have to do with primary topic determinations.

In this case, about 200 links off the top were from transclusions of Template:Greater Manchester, and 60 more were from Template:Public housing in the United Kingdom, so those were fixed in a couple of edits by Crouch, Swale. I don't know what other templates were involved, but there was a good-faith effort made by editors who supported the move to clean up a significant number of the new dablinks as was requested by Certes. Thanks, of course, to anyone else who volunteered help. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)