Jump to content

Talk:Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Even though this is not a deep insight into Houghton Hall it gives some knowlage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hick101 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2022

[edit]
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 section.

Result:
No consensus; moved back to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire. Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>. See good arguments in opposition and support below; however, there is no agreement whether to keep the current title or to move to the proposed title. So this article will be moved back to its long-term title for now. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, arguments can be strengthened and editors may try again in a few months to garner consensus for change. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire → Houghton Hall, Yorkshire – Page was moved before discussion reached a conclusion. An editor has twice deleted the discussion, asking that it be brought here instead. 94.196.93.1 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been moving back and forth over the years and a consensus needs to be reach in order to establish it's place. This RM should be allowed to run it's course. Pinging previous editors @Crouch, Swale:, @Asukite: - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Editors keep moving this discussion from one place to another and deleting the text of the discussion. I have copied the existing discussion below. --94.196.93.1 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton Hall, Yorkshire → Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire – Per WP:UKPLACE, current county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the one who processed this request. Just wanted to note that I saw it as uncontroversial because it is in line with our naming convention at WP:UKPLACE. Specifically: Where disambiguation is required, [[placename, ceremonial county]] is normally used. For example, Halling, Kent., a convention which I've found (after searching revision history), predates the move to the previous title. Based on this, it could be argued that any title outside this convention carries more controversy than the current title. That said, I am involved and have no real opinion either way, just hoping we can agree. ASUKITE 15:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While this can be reverted per WP:RMUM, just because the page was reverted earlier doesn't mean it is incorrect, per WP:UKPLACE we use (current) ceremonial county so we don't use just "Yorkshire" even if there's only 1 in Yorkshire as can be seen from others in Category:East Riding of Yorkshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the page had already been moved several times is a clear indication that the title is controversial and a consensus needs to be found through discussion. You were wrong to claim you were making an "uncontroversial technical request". The guideline WP:UKPLACE that you cite refers to geographical locations such as settlements. For a building such as this, a more helpful form of disambiguation would be to use a more specific location. See for example Charterhouse, Kingston upon Hull and Greyfriars, Beverley, both of which use specific locations. I notice also that we had Dalton Hall (Beverley) until you recently moved it to Dalton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire. A comma would be preferable to parentheses, but using "Beverley" would be much more helpful to readers looking for this page. --94.196.93.1 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages get moved incorrectly from time to time and correcting it if unnoticed for a long time doesn't make it controversial. Yes UKPLACE is mainly aimed at settlements but its also applicable to other types of places at least there isn't a guideline for UK buildings that I'm aware of. Regarding Charterhouse and Greyfriars both of those are within the settlements of Kingston upon Hull and Beverley which UKPLACE allows namely those unambiguously in the settlement as well as district. There may be a stronger preference to use settlement rather than county disambiguation for buildings but Dalton Hall is around 5 miles from Beverley and isn't in the parish either so the county is more appropriate than Dalton Hall (near Beverley). This seems to be the opposite of what is being debated here, namely that "Yorkshire" alone should be used instead of "East Riding of Yorkshire" because "Yorkshire" is specific enough. Yes this may be the case but it clearly goes against the guideline. The only time "Yorkshire" would probably be appropriate is if the place was in 2 or more of the Yorkshire counties and there was another in another county elsewhere otherwise "England" would probably be used like Bures, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly goes against WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yorkshire is clearly the best disambiguator here given there are no other places by this name in Yorkshire. Traditionally Yorkshire was a single county split into three ridings for administrative purposes. People from Yorkshire still consider themselves to be from a single county. Being pedantic and slavishly following guidelines is sometimes helpful to no one. This is one of those cases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Houghton Hall is not a place, so is not subject to the strictures of WP:UKPLACE. As such, the usual rules of disambiguation apply, which the disambiguator only needs to be sufficient to differentiate it from Houghton Hall in Norfolk. Thus the use of simple "Yorkshire" is amply good, and more concise than the longer ceremonial county name. Also, as an aside, if I was the God of the Wiki I would put the disambiguator in parentheses, i.e. "(Yorkshire)" as there is little logic to the "Commonwealth" convention of using a comma for non-places and it is inconsistent with US buildings such as Gibbs House (Lockport, New York)... but that's a battle for another day!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why buildings in other countries should have to be consistent with those in the United States. There's just as much reason for it to be the other way around. I see no logic in putting the disambiguator in parentheses. We don't do that in real world addresses, even in North America. It's something editors have invented for American buildings on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A building is a type of "place" even though "place" most commonly refers to settlements. So unless there's a specific rule for buildings we should just use UKPLACE. While I'm generally in favour of being concise it doesn't seem sensible to move away from the convention for a single building. Would you also do the same with the other 3 Yorkshire counties as well as the Sussexes? I would suggest if we do want to use just "Yorkshire" or "Sussex" for places that aren't settlements it should be discussed at a wider venue. There are lots of places not just settlements that are unique in the Yorkshires and the Sussexes but all of them to my awareness follow ceremonial county (or sometimes more specific) as per UKPLACE so would be against WP:CONSISTENT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also Google maps lists it as Houghton Hall, Houghton, Sancton, York, UK. Sancton says it is "The civil parish .. formed by the village of Sancton and the hamlet of Houghton" while Houghton Hall says about itself "Located on the estate is the village of Sancton and the vestigial remains of the ancient hamlet of Houghton" although Sancton doesn't mention this. A bit confusing... Facts707 (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That says nothing about being in Yorkshire alone but just the address. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, should be using the current county that the entity is in otherwise all buildings in the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire would all have Yorkshire as a disambiguator. Which would lead to the question what about those that used to be in Derbyshire would they get that as a disambiguator? Keith D (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should indeed all have Yorkshire as a disambiguator unless there is more than one in different parts of Yorkshire. Sometimes common sense should take precedence over pedantry per WP:IAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why just for Yokshire, by that agument all entities would be designated by their pre-1974 county (e.g. use Cumberland or Westmorland rather than Cumbria)? Keith D (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same case at all, given all four entities have "Yorkshire" in their title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: What would happen with the likes of Dore, South Yorkshire, namely places that were historically in the likes of Derbyshire? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dore, Yorkshire. It's been in Yorkshire since 1934, long before South Yorkshire existed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keith D makes a good point about what happens with places that are now in one of the Yorkshires but not in the historical county of Yorkshire. Also per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS just because the mistake wasn't noticed for years doesn't mean it can be left. Yes there are sometimes valid reasons to go against a NC but I don't really see any here. The only reason I can think of as noted is if the place was in more than 1 of the Yorkshire counties and there was another elsewhere in England, otherwise England would be used like Bures, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a mistake, because you are attempting to apply a guideline which doesn't apply here. Houghton Hall is not a place.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A building is still a place, how would you define a place? SCOTLANDPLACE makes mention of Jura, Scotland which is an island even though it seems per WP:PLACEDAB landforms often use brackets. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not a fan of ceremonial counties and dislike the "historic" counties even more. Moving this page goes against longtsanding consensus that we use ceremonial counties not historic ones to disambiguate even if the county is a "split" "historic" county like Yorkshire and Sussex. Eopsid (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – As someone who hales from the historic West Riding I'd love to see the historic divisions used, however we really need to concentrate on what readers from outside The County need. If all the places within Yorkshire could be disambiguated by a simple ", Yorkshire" then that would be my preference. Unfortunately sometimes we need to be more precise and use the ceremonial counties and if we use them at all we should use them always. Consider, for example, Tunstall, East Riding of Yorkshire and Tunstall, North Yorkshire. Introducing "Houghton Hall, Yorkshire" makes it look to someone with limited knowledge of Yorkshire as if it is in a different country from "Tunstall, East Riding of Yorkshire". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not talking about 'introducing "Houghton Hall, Yorkshire"', we're talking about reverting to that, because that was the established consensus title until the recent undiscussed move. --92.41.76.128 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Introducing to a discussion. The point is that "Tunstall, East Riding of Yorkshire" sounds to be in a different county to "Houghton Hall, Yorkshire". Always remember WP:RF, the aim is to assist our readers understand things, not to dwell in an ivory tower of purity. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, WP:RF, "readers first", is a very important point, but I think readers unfamiliar with the area would assume from the names that "North Yorkshire" and "East Riding of Yorkshire" were parts of "Yorkshire", rather than distinct from it. --92.41.76.128 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • There is no problem to solve here. We have an existing geographical disambiguation convention and nobody has suggested how using this creates any difficulties for this article.
    • If it were important that we should disambiguate with the largest geographical entity needed to distinguish articles then the logical conclusion for this article would be to rename it Houghton Hall, North of England. That would be silly too, however, and extending this principle to other articles would create huge amounts of chaos, confusion and argument. The implications for geographical categories would be even worse.
    • Yorkshire more broadly is unsuitable as a disambiguator as its boundaries are controversial - they have changed over the centuries and people have strong opinions about which of these changes they accept and which they don't.
    • A more real issue seems to be the question as to whether the Norfolk hall is the primary topic? Should that not be moved to Houghton Hall, Norfolk, with Houghton Hall as a disambiguation page? Is there a reason why the southern one is considered the definitive one? JimmyGuano (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearer to London? ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Larger and much more famous! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much size matters but fair enough if it's much more famous! Was just checking we weren't discussing an unproblematic dab over here while there was potentially a more problematic one staring us in the face over there. JimmyGuano (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could start a discussion at Talk:Houghton Hall (disambiguation) to move that to the base name but the Norfolk one gets 3,284 views compared with only 327 for the East Riding of Yorkshire one (227 for the "Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire" title and 100[[1]] for the "Houghton Hall, Yorkshire" redirect. There is also one in Cumbria that may merit and article and gets some views though, see Commons:Category:Houghton Hall which I disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "There is no problem to solve here", there clearly is a problem because somebody moved the page away from its consensus title without discussion. There doesn't appear to be an existing disambiguation convention for buildings, but the natural disambiguation is clearly to use "Yorkshire" - that's what people would use in real life if they needed to distinguish it from the one in Norfolk - and that's why the consensus until now has been have the article title with simply "Yorkshire". --92.41.76.128 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with moving back is that it goes against UKPLACE at worst and the rest of the buildings in the other Yorkshires of which none are disambiguated that was AFAIK. A similar example is Warleigh, Bickleigh, see that article's history and talk page where it was created to say it was in Tamerton Foliot parish even though it doesn't appear to have been so since 1951, in that case the page was moved away from the incorrect disambiguator and later moved to the correct parish before a RM to move back to the incorrect move was filed where I pointed out it probably wasn't in TF since 1951 and probably the reason was similar for the move in 2013 in that based on historical sources the mover thought it was still in just "Yorkshire" which is probably why they though that was correct and sufficient. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Requested closure at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Other_types_of_closing_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 27 January 2023

[edit]
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: moved. Consensus that the proposed title is most WP:CONSISTENT with titling practices for geographical locations in the UK. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton Hall, Yorkshire → Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire – as closer of the previous move request, I have been asked to move this article to the proposed title. That request was a result of consensus achieved in a closed and archived RfC now found at WT:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25. Moving away from the shorter title still appears to be quite controversial as seen by this recent discussion on an editor's talk page. Hopefully, this move request will support WikiProject UK geography's consensus for the highest and best title of this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this should never have been reverted last year and yesterday as there is a consensus anyway at WP:UKPLACE and WP:UKCOUNTIES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there has been longstanding consensus to use current counties not "historic" ones Eopsid (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it should not have been moved back yesterday. Keith D (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I still maintain that there is absolutely no need to specify the "specific" county for Yorkshire (and Sussex) if there is no ambiguity (e.g. if there is no other Houghton Hall in any other part of Yorkshire). It's pure unnecessary pedantry and I genuinely see no point to it other than that. The current title is wholly unambiguous and serves to disambiguate perfectly well. The fact that Yorkshire is now divided into four ceremonial counties does not remove the fact that it is generally regarded (both by the people who live there and those who do not) as a single entity called simply Yorkshire. We can use common sense in this, just as we rightly disambiguate places in the capital as "London" rather than "Greater London", the actual name of the ceremonial county. Why? Because adding the extra bit would be completely unnecessary, just as it is here. Greater London is commonly known simply as London; all the four parts of Yorkshire are commonly known collectively simply as Yorkshire; East and West Sussex are collectively known simply as Sussex. Those are the terms commonly used by people to specify where they're from and where places are unless (and only unless) further clarification is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houghton_Hall,_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire&oldid=1207659903"