Talk:Sunderland (disambiguation)

Why is an article name of this importance a dab page? JimmyGuano (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. (Talk:Sunderland,_Tyne_and_Wear#Disambiguation_of_cities, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#City_disambiguation) This is a disaster. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should direct to Sunderland, Tyne and Wear (from there at the top there should be links to City of Sunderland and the dab page), there is a similar affair with Salford which I find to be a bit daft.Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article on the area is infact the most notable field in regards to the single name "Sunderland", most people will type in "Sunderland" to view the article on the English city. Hence, the rest are of little significance in comparison to it to warrant a DAB page on typing in the word. Routerone (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects I shall make the changes. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was intentional and part of a standardisation of places of similar nature. Preston is the next to be done in the same way so this should not be changed in isolation to a redirect. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this proposal on the basis that there is no evidence that Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is the primary definition. --Jza84 | Talk 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to back Keith D here. I entered Sunderland expecting to see an article about Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. If the DAB page must remain by default, then at least put Sunderland, Tyne and Wear above the City of Sunderland link, which is just a political entity and much less relevant. 193.194.132.70 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Changing things in isolation" is the whole point of Wikipedia. Be bold! -Spacemartin (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Preston is a very different case, due to the roughly comparable populations of Preston, Lancashire and Preston, Victoria. -Spacemartin (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting moves: Sunderland --> Sunderland (disambiguation); Sunderland, Tyne and Wear --> Sunderland

Requested move 29 August 2017

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: moved DrStrauss talk 17:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland, Tyne and Wear → Sunderland

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is linked to by more than twice as many pages as City of Sunderland, which is itself linked to by more than twice as many pages as Sunderland. This shows that Sunderland, Tyne and Wear should be the primary topic. Also, as Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, being an article about part of the City of Sunderland, refers to City of Sunderland at the top of the page, the impact will be small. Also see Talk:Sunderland,_Tyne_and_Wear. Please note that the requested moves must happen in the specified order. Spacemartin (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on Talk:Sunderland,_Tyne_and_Wear are replicated here for convenience:

The problem is caused by the conflict between City of Sunderland, which is about the modern city (originally the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland, which gained city status in 1992), and Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, which is about the former County Borough of Sunderland (one of the four components that were amalgamated to form the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland), which still has a distinct local identity due to the fact that it is surrounded by Green Belt.

None of the other places called Sunderland has a sizeable population (I think the largest is Sunderland, Massachusetts with 3,684), and all of the other things on the disambiguation page have their own distinct names anyway, so I don't think there is any other justification for not moving this article to Sunderland. There is certainly precedent here - for instance, London is about London, England even though other Londons exist, e.g. London, Ontario.

The only question, then, is how to resolve Sunderland, Tyne and Wear vs City of Sunderland. I can see two main options here:

Merge the articles. However, this would create an imbalance, as Hetton-le-Hole, Houghton-le-Spring, and Washington would still have their own articles, even though they were also amalgamated into the Metropolitan Borough of Sunderland.
Move Sunderland, Tyne and Wear to Sunderland, with the justification that (a) most people who talk about Sunderland are referring to the former County Borough, and (b) most people talking about Washington, Houghton or Hetton would name those places explicitly. I would argue that the most important principle when categorising encyclopaedic information should be to use names and referents that are relatively timeless and widely accepted, which makes local and historical identity more important than local government boundaries, which are frequently changing and not always well understood.

Again, there is precedent here, with the London article existing in addition to Greater London and City of London - and the focus of the former article being on the generally-understood identity-based meaning of London, while the latter two articles go into detail on the current local government arrangements. For instance, the main London article refers to it as the "most populous city of England and the United Kingdom", even though technically the only parts of London with city status are the City of London and the City of Westminster, neither of which is very populous by city standards.

The article already includes a link to Sunderland (disambiguation) at the top. Also, the link to City of Sunderland (also at the top) ensures that people who want that article would not be inconvenienced by the move. I think that this is the best option overall.

This would require an administrator to help with deleting articles so that the necessary moves can take place (delete Sunderland (disambiguation) (the redirection page); move Sunderland --> Sunderland (disambiguation); delete Sunderland (the redirection page that was auto-created by the move); move Sunderland, Tyne and Wear --> Sunderland).

-Spacemartin (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other cases have previously been mentioned in this context:

Preston, Lancashire is of roughly comparable population to Preston, Victoria in Australia. Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is by far the largest Sunderland other than its own borough.
Similarly, Carlisle, Cumbria and Carlisle, Pennsylvania have roughly comparable populations.
Salford, Greater Manchester is surrounded by the urban sprawl of Greater Manchester, making its border arbitrary and subject to potential confusion; Sunderland, Tyne and Wear is surrounded by Green Belt (and a narrow tract of industrial land that functions in a similar way to green belt), giving it a clear boundary from the rest of the City of Sunderland, and ensuring that Sunderland, Washington, Houghton and Hetton are generally spoken about as separate places even though they are all technically in the City of Sunderland.

-Spacemartin (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the top 9 Google results for "Sunderland", all but two are currently about Sunderland AFC (the football club). The Wikipedia article Sunderland A.F.C. is the fifth result. However, (a) the prominence of the football club's article under this title means that it should not be necessary to disambiguate to it, and (b) the football club is based in, and closely associated with, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and pre-dates the City of Sunderland by almost a century.

I don't begrudge the other parts of the City of Sunderland their status as an integral part of it - the more the merrier - but I think it should at least be possible for Sunderland, Tyne and Wear's article to have the same level of prominence that Houghton-le-Spring and Hetton-le-Hole's articles currently enjoy.

-Spacemartin (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - As noted above there's also City of Sunderland so moving is only gonna confuse, Could merge but even that could potentially confuse so best off left where it is. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Tim - I obviously wasn't aware of such articles and as such it essentially made my above point moot, As there isn't going to be any confusion I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be moved. –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per many similar cases where the local authority is named "City/Borough of [Main settlement name]" but the settlement itself is the best known use of the name and has the main name space, e.g. Canterbury/City of Canterbury, Winchester/City of Winchester, Guildford/Borough of Guildford, Chelmsford/City of Chelmsford, Bradford/City of Bradford or Swindon/Borough of Swindon amongst others. There's nothing to suggest that Sunderland is an exceptional case with the wider local government district having displaced the settlement itself as the standard use of the name. Timrollpickering 22:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom's arguments, which I endorse, and per WP:COMMONNAME. The common meanings of "Sunderland" in UK are (1) that place where Mackems live (as seen on road signs liks this one and this one or (2) the football club (which even its most fervent supporter would be unlikely to argue should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Unlike in U.S.A., in UK county names are only appended to placenames when there's possible ambiguity (and not always then). (And AFAIC – Sunderland is still in County Durham, whatever the local government authority might from time to time be called.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.