Talk:Tunstall, Staffordshire

This article is lacking a working image of Tunstall. I would upload one myself, but I am not very knowledgable about the licences and copyrights of images of this sort. If you can help us to a picture of Tunstall, please do. --Nin 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This area of Stoke-on-Trent appears to be qualified with Staffordshire as opposed to the other Tunstall in Staffordshire which is near Adbaston according to the map.

The Gazatette has the other Tunstall qualified by Staffordshire. The entry for this Tunstall I have left pointing at the Dab page at Tunstall, that page currently has no entry for the second Staffordshire Tunstall.

Someone who knows the area needs to workout what the qualifiers should be for the 2 locations and apply it as approptiate.

Keith D 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The change which has been made, with unnecessary haste, is quite wrong and ought to have been discussed fully like all other disambiguation matters before any such change was made. There are established procedures that should be followed. Use Google and you will find dozens of high quality websites for Tunstall, Staffordshire. All relate to the pottery town. The tiny village (if it is indeed a village) should not be given the label of "Tunstall, Staffordshire" that, through long usage belongs to the most northerly of the six towns. This change ought to be reversed. NoelWalley 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that seeing as Wikipedia already had 2 pages in existence, it was appropriate to move the contents of "Tunstall, Staffordshire" to "Tunstall, City of Stoke-On-Trent". All pages pointing to the original page have been altered to point to the moved page.

Apologies for any confusion,

Aidan Croft 12:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree the settlement of X people (which it appears to be) should not gain precedence over the more well known Tunstall in Staffordshire. Alternatively the Tunstall, Staffordshire page should now just be a disambiguation. I am minded to list this at requested moves as this cannot be undone due to edits already made to the other Tunstall page, but I would appreciate other editor's thoughts. --Regan123 13:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Tunstall, Staffordshire" already contains information regarding a place in Staffordshire and should be left as it is. "Tunstall" currently exists as a disambiguation page and fulfills the role you describe above.

Many thanks,

Aidan Croft 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See the example at Ash, Kent and Ash, where there are two places in the same county. There is no problem with having multiple disambiguation pages where they are needed - in Kent this are similarly sized settlements so it works. Instead we now have a situation where anyone writing a biography of someone who came from Tunstall in Staffordshire is going to point at the wrong article. Many older biographies don't recognise Stoke on Trent as a disambiguator. The small village should have been put in a separate article (eg. Tunstall (near Eccleshall) or Tunstall, Stafford (the parent borough) and this one left where it is. A disambig line at the top of this article would have sufficed. And considering the Google results NoelWalley raised, this would be more appropriate under the naming conventions. --Regan123 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a fair compromise would be the following: 1) Leave "Tunstall, City of Stoke-On-Trent" as it is. 2) Make "Tunstall, Staffordshire" a second disambiguation page. 3) Create a completely new page called "Tunstall, Stafford" to cover the small village near Eccleshall. I think if these 3 points were implemented, we would have done the best thing in terms of uniformity. If other editors also agree that this is the best course of action then I will proceed with these extra changes.

Regards,

Aidan Croft 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent → Tunstall, Staffordshire — Restoring page to where it was before move with no discussion. Unable to simply revert as other article has now been edited. Google searches show this being the Tunstall, Staffordshire most referred to. Existing name also incorrect (City of) is superfluous. Tunstall, Staffordshire now refers to a village of a few houses, should be moved to Tunstall (near Eccleshall) or Tunstall, Stafford. A disambiguation link on this article at the top will suffice. Regan123 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

1. Support per my nom. Regan123 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. Support in accord with my original complaint, the village is a very small hamlet in the Borough of Stafford. NoelWalley 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Oppose

A fair compromise would be the following: 1) Leave Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent as it is. 2) Make Tunstall, Staffordshire a second disambiguation page. 3) Create a completely new page called Tunstall, Stafford to cover the small village near Eccleshall. I think if these 3 points were implemented, we would have done the best thing in terms of uniformity. If other editors also agree that this is the best course of action then I will proceed with these extra changes. Also, I do not believe that "Google" is the "be all and end all".

A further point to make is that when I came across List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_Tr-Tz#Tu Staffordshire's main Tunstall is correctly shown as "City of Stoke-on-Trent" whilst the Tunstall that is a small hamlet is also correctly identified as "Staffordshire"

Aidan Croft 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Oppose neither of the 2 suggestions for alternatives appear suitable. A more logical move would be to move Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent -> Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Keith D 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add any additional comments:

• Most people would go in via the dab page or by a wikilink, so if the dab page is correct and clear than the naming of the page should not be a problem. Keith D 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The original quite unnecessary change was made without any consultation whatsoever. The table (to which Aidan Croft referred) already listed the village (but without an article) as Tunstall (Eccleshall) in Staffordshire. The instant change was quite unjustified and makes a mockery of consensus. We are expected to invite opinions, using established procedures before renaming and it would be unjust to allow it to stand. The new Tunstall, Staffordshire article comprises just the following single line without Category or Stub label:

"Tunstall, Staffordshire, is a small village near Eccleshall in Staffordshire." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunstall%2C_Staffordshire"

NoelWalley 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I quite agree that the contents of Tunstall, Staffordshire are short and sweet but as I have described above this is the best arrangement and would be even better if we all went with the suggestions of Keith D, that is, to move Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent to Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent leave Tunstall, Staffordshire where it is and to also leave Tunstall doing its sterling job as a disambiguation page and maybe even put a link to it at the top of both Tunstall, Staffordshire and Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

Aidan Croft 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would not be better - it has exactly the same problems. A Google Search shows 125,000 hits. See Talk:Newport/archive1, Talk:Chester, Talk:Plymouth and many others where this has been done to death. The major settlement always takes precedence. I was born and bred in Staffs - spent 20 years of my life there. Had family near the hamlet of Tunstall. Every mention of Tunstall was of the town that now forms part of Stoke council area. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a hamlet of one man and his dog is more important? From the naming guidelines Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Again, is a hamlet now more easily recognised than one of the six towns? This was a bad move made with no consensus and should be reverted. Regan123 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it should not be reverted. The small Tunstall should come under the Tunstall, Stafford page and the famous Tunstall should be moved to Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. As you say, the large Tunstall and Stoke go hand in hand and so the inclusion of "Stoke on Trent" in the name only goes to further reinforce the idea. As for the Tunstall, Staffordshire page, it could act as a second, general page or even a disambiguation page for both of the two settlements. There was never ANY suggestion that the Tunstall hamlet was more important, just that it should be named as above.

I currently (still) live in North Staffordshire and have lived here for as long as yourself.

Aidan Croft 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A further point I would like to make is that I know the major settlement would always, obviouslly take precedence but Stoke is well known for Tunstall and as such a further Google search shows 140,000 results compared with 125,000 for your search.

Aidan Croft 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

From WP:Disambiguation: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? and When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page. Again, are you suggesting that the hamlet is the primary topic? What would a user expect to find? A hamlet or a town? This move breaks the naming and disambiguation conventions on Wikipedia and was done without obtaining a consensus. And now I see the Gazatette has both locations pointing to a disambiguation page. Regan123 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would say they would expect to see Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent or just Tunstall. Typing "Tunstall" in Wikipedia and hitting GO takes the user to the Tunstall disambiguation page - is this not a good thing?

Aidan Croft 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know what is causing the confusion here. Tunstall the hamlet currently resides in Tunstall, Staffordshire. This would suggest the largest Tunstall in Staffordshire which is clearly not true!!!! I am suggesting the hamlet be moved to Tunstall, Stafford and that NEITHER of the two Tunstalls have the Tunstall, Staffordshire page. It could serve as a disambiguation page for both of the settlements.

Aidan Croft 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The confusion caused is because the article was moved without any discussion and to the wrong place. If it had been left exactly where it was then there wouldn't be any confusion. This is not a fixable situation without reversion. Why are we trying to disambiguate a one man and his dog settlement with a major town? There is absolutely no need to do this as per the above disambiguation guidelines - primary meanings take the page and disambiguation is handled at the top of the page. If someone types Tunstall, Staffordshire what would they expect to see - Tunstall the town, not a hamlet, not a disambiguation page. It needs to be moved back to undo this mess. Regan123 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As per my Google search above compared with your Google search above, "Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent" is more well known than just a nondescriptive "Tunstall, Staffordshire". In fact, the first sentence of the article reads: "Tunstall is an area in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire,".

• Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent ---> Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent
• Tunstall, Staffordshire ---> Tunstall, Stafford
• Tunstall ---> Remain as it is

As a result, WP:Disambiguation in fact supports the move I made because Tunstall (the town) is well known as one of the six towns of the potteries, and so having "Stoke-on-Trent" in the name of the article only goes to reinforce the idea.

Aidan Croft 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. True, Tunstall has, during a hundred years, been absorbed into the City of Stoke-on-Trent of which it is a "founding father". But, and this is very important, Tunstall, Staffordshire already had a notable history as one of the Staffordshire pottery towns and birthplace to a great earthenware industry with names such as Enoch Wedgwood, H & R Johnson, Myott Meakin - need I go on to list many more notable potters? Are we to defer this historical link to a tiny hamlet near Stafford that has nothing to say for itself? Please, the two articles should be Tunstall, Staffordshire and Tunstall, Stafford but with whatever disambiguation links seem appropriate. NoelWalley 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't agree more with this. Tunstall the town is the primary settlement with the name Tunstall in Staffordshire. The dismabiguation guidelines therefore mean it should be at Tunstall, Staffordshire. Regan123 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope! Tunstall, Staffordshire as a page need not exist at all! Seeing as there are two places with this name, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent and Tunstall, Stafford should be formed. The link between Tunstall and Stoke-on-Trent is far, far greater than the link between Tunstall and Staffordshire! It is of upmost importance that Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent is moved to Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent as most people associate Tunstall with the city. In no way would putting it in Tunstall, Staffordshire give any greater status to it just because it has the name of the county in the title! As I have said numerous times (as per my Google search as well as Reagan123's Google search, many more people associate Tunstall with Stoke-on-Trent!

Aidan Croft 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

So Tunstall is no longer in Staffordshire??? The move has no consensus and should be reverted. Are we going to move every article about a settlement in Stoke to xxx, City of Stoke on Trent??? Are we going to move Madeley, Staffordshire to Madeley, Newcastle-under-Lyme??? Where do the naming guidelines support this? Perhaps we should move Anerley to Anerley, Bromley because it sits in that London Borough?Regan123 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, "The Potteries" is confined pretty much to the six towns, i.e - Stoke on Trent, and all the pottery firms you listed are in fact in Stoke on Trent, specifically.

Aidan Croft 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A good point Aidan Croft, were you also intending to rename, without consultation or discussion, the articles relating to the other five towns as: Burslem, City of Stoke-on-Trent; Hanley, City of Stoke-on-Trent; Stoke-upon-Trent, City of Stoke-on-Trent; Fenton (ex Staffordshire), City of Stoke-on-Trent and finally Longton (ex Staffordshire), City of Stoke-on-Trent? Do that and we can all forget about the nineteenth century and the great history of the Staffordshire Potteries, the North Staffordshire Railway and much else - but of course, at its very heart will still be the Staffordshire University.

Come now, why this unilateral renaming of Tunstall, Staffordshire for the sake of a tiny hamlet? Do you know? Is the hamlet part of the parish of Ecclestone or Adbaston or Knighton or some other parish? Its certainly not a parish in its own right! What do you know of its history? I am quite sure the hamlet will be well served by an entry under Tunstall (Stafford) - so why not revert Tunstall to its historic title? NoelWalley 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the hamlet article has been edited it can only be reverted by an admin - the earth has been salted. That tends to be a problem with this kind of move. And Tunstall has been part of Stoke-on-Trent for less than a century.Regan123 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the Tunstall hamlet did not exist I would still say its best to put it as Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent, it just makes sense. Maybe Burslem, Hanley and so on SHOULD be changed to Stoke-on-Trent as per the description in the Gazatette - for the sake of uniformity!

Aidan Croft 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please show where the naming guidelines support this? If a reader looked up Tunstall, Staffordshire as the birth place of a pottery or a Wedgwood or whatever what would they expect to find? How is the town not the primary settlement as per the disambiguation guidelines? Regan123 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am proud of the area in which I live and recognise the importance of all these places to the history of Staffordshire, but they are only a part of Staffordshire whereas those places you listed MAKE Stoke on Trent.

Aidan Croft 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, are they no longer part of Staffordshire? Convention is to name articles at xxx,Administrative County. Further disambiguation is only required for equal status settlements or sub primary settlements? Is a hamlet now equal with a town. Regan123 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have searched everywhere and have not found your naming convention of "xxx, Administrative County". Once again, I am not suggesting that the hamlet should take precedence over the large Tunstall. In fact, do we both not agree that at least the hamlet should be moved out of Tunstall, Staffordshire and into Tunstall, Stafford as I have been saying all along?

The next step would then be to move Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent into Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Unless of course I am faced with Wikipedia "consensus" that your naming convention is correct. If you provide this evidence then we should go along with your suggestion immediately which I believe has been the general idea of my comments throughout this mess.

Regards,

Aidan Croft 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain and here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United_Kingdom, and of course primary meaning as per WP:Disambiguation. Go to any category, say, Category:Greater Manchester , Category:Medway (a unitary authority) that uses ,Kent not ,Medway. And there is no consensus for any move of the Tunstall article to Stoke-on-Trent, never mind the one that has been made. Regan123 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for showing me Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United_Kingdom. It clearly states that articles should be "Name, County" where more than one place name exists. BUT it does not offer suggestions on naming of articles where there are two places with the SAME NAME in the SAME COUNTY.

Aidan Croft 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which is where WP:Disambiguation which looks at primary meaning (guideline page emphasis) comes in (see the quote above). This isn't about reading one is isolation. So the normal use is Tunstall, Staffordshire (just like Chatham, Kent). Now there are two articles. If they were two towns then Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent and Tunstall, Stafford would apply with Tunstall, Staffordshire as a disambiguation. But where one is clearly the primary meaning it takes the page and the less important article gets a simple dab link at the top. Which is what should have been done in the first place.

And please don't type in capitals - it is considered shouting. Regan123 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for using capital letters, I meant to use Bold.

Regards,

Aidan Croft 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

When Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent has been moved into Tunstall, Staffordshire (which I have initiated via the Wikipedia administrators) I will take it upon myself to change all articles that link to Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent back to Tunstall, Staffordshire.

Thanks,

Aidan Croft 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tunstall, Staffordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029213426/http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Tunstall-prepares-Britain-s-tallest-artworks/story-19283086-detail/story.html to http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Tunstall-prepares-Britain-s-tallest-artworks/story-19283086-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905081004/http://www.northernsoultrain.webspace.virginmedia.com/index/torch.html to http://www.northernsoultrain.webspace.virginmedia.com/index/torch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply