Category talk:Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne

I am proposing renaming this to Category:Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne as this isn't a separate settlement while the Cumbrian one is. The Cumbrian one also has a similar number of images to the Newcastle one. There are also other topics such as w:Gosforth, New South Wales and w:Gosforth (ship). The Newcastle one also doesn't have significantly more pageviews (as there was a large jump on the 16th) than the others combined and primary topics have a higher threshold here than for Wikipedia articles. See User talk:Crouch, Swale#Category moves for further information. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Gosforth in Newcastle is not currently a separate settlement, but is much bigger in population - its lack of admin significance doesn't overrule the fact its just plain bigger.

This is reflected by the WP pageviews, which when you exclude the bump on the 16th shows it gets over 6 times as many views as the Cumbrian village and 4 times as many as all the other terms. That's the very definition of significantly more pageviews, and it would be for anything with more than double the views of the others combined. Below that level it still might apply, but it starts to be contentious. Not at 4x.

The Australian suburb and the ship are irrelevant to this, as they have no media.

As for file count, there are substantially more for the Newcastle location (105 vs 75), but not overwhelmingly so. I'd expect the Cumbrian one to have more files than its lack-of-importance suggests, as its parish covers a larger area than the one in Newcastle. It is also obvious that there are a lot of errors in the Cumbrian category, for instance neither File:On Stockdale Moor - geograph.org.uk - 198793.jpg nor File:Woodland Trail through Gosforth Wood - geograph.org.uk - 963063.jpg show something in the Cumbrian CP. On a quick inspection, I think 23 of the files in Category:Gosforth, Cumbria do not belong there. In contrast, the Newcastle category looks pretty accurate. That alters the ratio to 109:52, which is significantly in favour of the place in Newcastle.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, your points indicate that that this one is more searched for/important. While 4x the views of others combined might be enough on Wikipedia, as you pointed out, primary topics are held higher here, shouldn't it be at least 10X. The problem is that the meaning of primary topic is too vague, see this comment for example, does "much more" mean like 1.5X, 5X, 10X or 100X, does it mean "much more likely than any other topic", and "much more likely than all the other topics combined" or does the 2nd bit only need "more likely than all the other topics combined". Even still you pointed out somewhere that if it takes 75% on Wikipedia it should be 90% here, which Gosforth isn't. The Australian suburb and the ship are not irrelevant unless at least there is evidence that they couldn't have images currently, even if none have arrived. However we know that Australian places are ofen known with their state unlike the 2 places discussed above (which have changed). A ratio of 109:52 is way too low (especially when this doesn't include other potential topics). Like Kemble there is coverage on the surname and there is also w:Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth. I'd note that it has had admin significance in the past, 6 units compared to 3 but again that's only double. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The precise level (if its 1x or 2x or 1,000,000X) is not strictly pertinent. If you look at WP discussions sometimes 1.1X is enough to "win" and sometimes 5X will not be enough - that's subjective and it depends how the discussion goes. Its up to consensus to determine what the appropriate level is on a case-by-case basis, and consensus will never generate a rule that says something like "if >= 3X yes, otherwise no". You can create such a rule for yourself if you wish, but it doesn't mean others will agree with you about either the level you set or the fact you have such a rule at all. The ratio is an indicator, nothing more.

In this case, I will continue to oppose move as I believe the Gosforth in Tyne and Wear is primary (as demonstrated by a >6x ratio in page views on WP and a >2x ratio in file count).--Nilfanion (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is that if there isn't such a general rule, there will be inconsistent outcomes.

I still don't see how that's enough, you have previously been critical on removing disambiguation, so I don't see how this one shouldn't be disambiguated. I really don't see how the points you make are enough but your "tests" are too vague. If you want a different test then you can change Commons:Category disambiguation. The 10x rule was something you stated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You will get always inconsistent outcomes on the margins, and its an inevitable consequence of consensus - the only way to avoid that is to have diktats from on high - I'd rather have inconsistency than that sort of environment. A 10x rule I mentioned elsewhere previously would have been in the context of a rule-of-thumb not a law of the land. My problem is making changes to the status quo, as realistically changes in either direction rarely give benefits, and often give harm. You have a marked tendency to move things round, when leaving the things alone isn't actually going to cause any problems. With that in mind, can you see why I'd object to moving a topic with an 8x ratio from a disambiguated term to the base name; and also object to moving a topic with a 3x ratio from the base name to a disambiguated term? My consistent message is don't move unless you really, really HAVE to. Again this is off-topic, please stick to Gosforth instead of things I might have said elsewhere.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)