This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
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: Not moved. The Supporter's long-term significance arguments based primarily on current populations have been sufficiently rebutted by the Opposition from Roxy the dog and Crouch, Swale, such that the largely unrebutted usage arguments (Certes does attempt to do so but the football club isn't merely called "Ipswich" and is therefore not relevant to the analysis, and even on his numbers the English city has the majority of pageviews) of the Opposition show that the primary topic continues to be the English city. (
non-admin closure)
Iffy★
Chat -- 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Ipswich → Ipswich, England – Not sure how the English city is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; for comparison, the town of Suffolk has a population of 179k (per the third paragraph), while the city in Queensland has a population of 232k.
SHB2000 (
talk) 02:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose: It turns out that the second paragraph of
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT distinguishes cities in this very situation based on the reasoning that the main article should be about the city "which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often". We don't know how many views that
Ipswich, England would get, but the views I've quoted tend to support keeping the primary topic as the city in England. —RCraig09 (
talk) 05:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
RCraig09: The difference between this and the first two examples listed on
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is that the primary topic is clearly more populous, unlike Ipswich where the Queensland city has about 50,000 more inhabitants than the English town. --
SHB2000 (
talk) 07:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Certes's 13:49 post, below, provides further factual information. The question is whether we decide based on population, article viewership, date of origin, perceived "notability", etc. It's a judgment call. —RCraig09 (
talk) 17:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SHB2000: Is the Ipswich in Australia more populous? The figure you gave below is for the local government area not the settlement,
GeoNames says the population of the settlement is 2958. For example for
Stafford, the town it is
70,145 but the LGA is
136,867. For Ipswich the individual town is
151,240, the urban areas is
185,300 but the LGA/unparished area is only
139,642. Ipswich LGA in Australia is clearly more populous but the individual settlement may well be less so, see
this comment. Ipswich LGA in Australia includes other settlements while Ipswich LGA in Suffolk doesn't cover all of the town. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 23:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Although local government areas don't necessarily correlate with cities, Ipswich is a rare case where it does (i.e. Ipswich + suburbs, just like any other Australian city). GeoNames might be confusing it with
Ipswich (suburb), Queensland, which in the case of Ipswich, forms only the central business district. --
SHB2000 (
talk) 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong support per nom. Clearly not the primary topic, DAB should be moved here.
echidnaLives -
talk -
edits 06:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Let's be sensible and have the town after which all the other towns are named as the primary topic-
Roxy thedog 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak support for Ipswich, Suffolk per 162 below – a marginal case. Daily page views/incoming links are
Ipswich (England) 691/3,370;
Ipswich, Massachusetts 197/477;
Ipswich, Queensland 104/1,489.
Ipswich Town F.C. beats them all but it's unclear how many readers expect to find that article using just "Ipswich". Location-independent search results are split between England and U.S. I've fixed about 80 links to "Ipswich" meaning the Australian city but very few for U.S. or F.C. We don't always give the base name title to the first place to use it:
Boston is named for
Boston, Lincolnshire.
Certes (
talk) 12:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't take the football club as a competitor for the name as the club is based in the town so
WP:DABCONCEPT may apply, if looking for the FC you would follow a link in the lead though none currently exists. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per the nominator and Certes.
╠╣uw[
talk 13:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Roxy the dog and the observation by RCraig09.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 19:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Ipswich in Suffolk appears to be primary by long-term significance and ahead by usage. Ipswich is the capital and largest settlement in Suffolk and its also the seat of the Suffolk district of
Ipswich though the Queensland one is also the seat of Queensland district of
Ipswich. The settlement of Ipswich also seems to have a higher population than the Queensland one which for some reason doesn't appear to have any data. If moved it should indeed be
Ipswich, Suffolk per
WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 20:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Roxy and RCraig09. The namesake of the other towns should be the primary article.
4meter4 (
talk) 03:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose the proposal as it stands as Ipswich, England doesn't accord with
WP:UKPLACE. However, have nothing against Ipswich, Suffolk. A demotion for Ipswich (UK), I suppose. But as a Wikipedia reader, I've found that arriving on a disambiguation page and seeing the alternatives laid out can of itself be enlightening.
Rupples (
talk) 01:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose I can see the sense of, and agree to, Ipswich Suffolk and believe that it would not add any difficulty to a wiki user's research. Otherwise it stays as is.
Edmund Patrick –
confer 08:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
We now have a few !votes (including mine) which oppose Ipswich, England per UKPLACE but would support (or at least not oppose) Ipswich, Suffolk. How do we best deal with this option? Can we repurpose this RM, or would it be better to make a technical close and start again, clearly proposing Ipswich, Suffolk?
Certes (
talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
If the oppose is only to the specific suggestion of "Ipswich, England" as opposed to the issue really relevant namely primary topic then I'd take it as a neutral !vote. Normally if the target it incorrect its best to write something like "Support Ipswich, Suffolk" if supporting no primary topic or write "Oppose"... if moved move to Ipswich, Suffolk" if opposing to the move because we think the town in England is primary but pointing out where it should go if it has to be moved. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per PAGEVIEWS. No objection to a primary redirect to Ipswich Suffolk.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 20:05, 30 November 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.
Roman Fort at Felixstowe
Is it neccesary to mention the Roman fort at Felixstowe or is this more felixstowes history
Joeeeyyy2008 (
talk) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The college at Ipswich funded by Cardinal Wolsey
Even when in disgrace with Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey continued to foster a "college" in Ipswich. Does it remain as one of its many schools? The town's relationship with Wolsey appears in the article, and the fate of the college would be a significant part of that.
Jackaroodave (
talk) 12:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
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: Not moved. The Supporter's long-term significance arguments based primarily on current populations have been sufficiently rebutted by the Opposition from Roxy the dog and Crouch, Swale, such that the largely unrebutted usage arguments (Certes does attempt to do so but the football club isn't merely called "Ipswich" and is therefore not relevant to the analysis, and even on his numbers the English city has the majority of pageviews) of the Opposition show that the primary topic continues to be the English city. (
non-admin closure)
Iffy★
Chat -- 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Ipswich → Ipswich, England – Not sure how the English city is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; for comparison, the town of Suffolk has a population of 179k (per the third paragraph), while the city in Queensland has a population of 232k.
SHB2000 (
talk) 02:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose: It turns out that the second paragraph of
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT distinguishes cities in this very situation based on the reasoning that the main article should be about the city "which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often". We don't know how many views that
Ipswich, England would get, but the views I've quoted tend to support keeping the primary topic as the city in England. —RCraig09 (
talk) 05:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
RCraig09: The difference between this and the first two examples listed on
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is that the primary topic is clearly more populous, unlike Ipswich where the Queensland city has about 50,000 more inhabitants than the English town. --
SHB2000 (
talk) 07:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Certes's 13:49 post, below, provides further factual information. The question is whether we decide based on population, article viewership, date of origin, perceived "notability", etc. It's a judgment call. —RCraig09 (
talk) 17:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SHB2000: Is the Ipswich in Australia more populous? The figure you gave below is for the local government area not the settlement,
GeoNames says the population of the settlement is 2958. For example for
Stafford, the town it is
70,145 but the LGA is
136,867. For Ipswich the individual town is
151,240, the urban areas is
185,300 but the LGA/unparished area is only
139,642. Ipswich LGA in Australia is clearly more populous but the individual settlement may well be less so, see
this comment. Ipswich LGA in Australia includes other settlements while Ipswich LGA in Suffolk doesn't cover all of the town. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 23:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Although local government areas don't necessarily correlate with cities, Ipswich is a rare case where it does (i.e. Ipswich + suburbs, just like any other Australian city). GeoNames might be confusing it with
Ipswich (suburb), Queensland, which in the case of Ipswich, forms only the central business district. --
SHB2000 (
talk) 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong support per nom. Clearly not the primary topic, DAB should be moved here.
echidnaLives -
talk -
edits 06:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Let's be sensible and have the town after which all the other towns are named as the primary topic-
Roxy thedog 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak support for Ipswich, Suffolk per 162 below – a marginal case. Daily page views/incoming links are
Ipswich (England) 691/3,370;
Ipswich, Massachusetts 197/477;
Ipswich, Queensland 104/1,489.
Ipswich Town F.C. beats them all but it's unclear how many readers expect to find that article using just "Ipswich". Location-independent search results are split between England and U.S. I've fixed about 80 links to "Ipswich" meaning the Australian city but very few for U.S. or F.C. We don't always give the base name title to the first place to use it:
Boston is named for
Boston, Lincolnshire.
Certes (
talk) 12:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't take the football club as a competitor for the name as the club is based in the town so
WP:DABCONCEPT may apply, if looking for the FC you would follow a link in the lead though none currently exists. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per the nominator and Certes.
╠╣uw[
talk 13:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Roxy the dog and the observation by RCraig09.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 19:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Ipswich in Suffolk appears to be primary by long-term significance and ahead by usage. Ipswich is the capital and largest settlement in Suffolk and its also the seat of the Suffolk district of
Ipswich though the Queensland one is also the seat of Queensland district of
Ipswich. The settlement of Ipswich also seems to have a higher population than the Queensland one which for some reason doesn't appear to have any data. If moved it should indeed be
Ipswich, Suffolk per
WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 20:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Roxy and RCraig09. The namesake of the other towns should be the primary article.
4meter4 (
talk) 03:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose the proposal as it stands as Ipswich, England doesn't accord with
WP:UKPLACE. However, have nothing against Ipswich, Suffolk. A demotion for Ipswich (UK), I suppose. But as a Wikipedia reader, I've found that arriving on a disambiguation page and seeing the alternatives laid out can of itself be enlightening.
Rupples (
talk) 01:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose I can see the sense of, and agree to, Ipswich Suffolk and believe that it would not add any difficulty to a wiki user's research. Otherwise it stays as is.
Edmund Patrick –
confer 08:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
We now have a few !votes (including mine) which oppose Ipswich, England per UKPLACE but would support (or at least not oppose) Ipswich, Suffolk. How do we best deal with this option? Can we repurpose this RM, or would it be better to make a technical close and start again, clearly proposing Ipswich, Suffolk?
Certes (
talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
If the oppose is only to the specific suggestion of "Ipswich, England" as opposed to the issue really relevant namely primary topic then I'd take it as a neutral !vote. Normally if the target it incorrect its best to write something like "Support Ipswich, Suffolk" if supporting no primary topic or write "Oppose"... if moved move to Ipswich, Suffolk" if opposing to the move because we think the town in England is primary but pointing out where it should go if it has to be moved. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per PAGEVIEWS. No objection to a primary redirect to Ipswich Suffolk.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 20:05, 30 November 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.
Roman Fort at Felixstowe
Is it neccesary to mention the Roman fort at Felixstowe or is this more felixstowes history
Joeeeyyy2008 (
talk) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The college at Ipswich funded by Cardinal Wolsey
Even when in disgrace with Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey continued to foster a "college" in Ipswich. Does it remain as one of its many schools? The town's relationship with Wolsey appears in the article, and the fate of the college would be a significant part of that.
Jackaroodave (
talk) 12:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)reply