Jump to content

Talk:Falmer

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

Opening heading

[edit]

The page 'Falmer' should redirect to 'Falmer (disambiguation)'. The viallge is not the only thing that is officially referred to as 'Falmer' - the railway station, but particularly the fantasy race are referred to by simply this term. More importantly, the proposed football ground is most often referred to as Falmer, be it official or not. It is as officially 'Falmer' as it is 'Falmer stadium', and far more noteworthy than the village (the stadium will hold ten times the population of the village). The precedent of a sports arena being more noteworthy than the village or district in which it is located is common throughout sport.Tescoid (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true but I still thinks this needs a requested move. It is convention (certainly for UK stations) for the place to be at the main name and the railway station to be at "place railway station" so that's not an argument. When it comes to the race and the stadium there appears to be some disagreement as to whether Falmer should a) be a disambiguation page, b) be about the stadium with a hat note to other uses or c) be about the village with a hat note. From my understanding you propose a, User:WikiTome propeses b and I'm current leaning towards c. Therefore any move is not uncontreversial and should have been dealt with by a requested move. I'm requesting deletion of this page so Falmer (village) can be moved back here from it's clearly incorrect location and a discussion at WP:RM can be started from the original, and much more sensible, positon. Dpmuk (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Falmer (village) 'clearly incorrect'? If you look at the Anfield or Old Trafford pages, they go to the stadia, not the areas they are in. The village is tiny and the majority of people worldwide would not even be aware there is a village there. Surely the nature of this controversy lends itself to a disambiguation page, if you're not happy with your proposal, 'b'.
Moving Falmer (village) to Falmer, Sussex might be an idea, if you're not happy with the village reference.Tescoid (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, per WP:Place#England if the village isn't at Falmer it should be at Falmer, East Sussex. But I still feel any move requires the full discussion of a requested move. I suggest you read the instructions there as the appropiate place for this discussion is in a requested move discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Falmer, East Sussex. I would imagine that would be an uncontroversial move. Are you sure the discussion here does not suffice?

Can we just hurry up and move Falmer village back to here so we can get on with life as it should be? The original move was incorrect and was done without consensus. It now needs to be moved back, and if someone wants to generate consensus for a move, THEN a requested move should be started. Jeni (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

An article about the village should be at Falmer, East Sussex. I have no objection to moving the village article to that title, subject to two important provisos:

  • a substantial proportion of the incoming links should be changed before the move
  • there is consensus here that the move is OK.[see below]

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced there is consensus, two people against, one for (at the moment). The arguments don't exactly hold up either, discounting the pages which are not called "Falmer", that leaves this village and Falmer (Elder Scrolls). There isn't a chance in hell (in my opinion) that some fictional characters from a little known computer game are remotely notable enough to knock a physical village off the primary topic spot in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falmer → Falmer, East Sussex — Procedural nomination following attempted moves without consensus. Obviously the second and third moves below are mutually exclusive. The question here is what should be at Falmer - an article on the village, an article on the stadium or a disambiguation page as no topic is primary (and there are other topics although as far as I'm aware no one has argued that they are primary). Dpmuk (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page Falmer should become a disambiguation page, with all the related articles pertaining to or with "Falmer" in the title becoming links off that disambiguation page. WikiTome Talk 10:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with WikiTome. It is irrelevant that the naming of the stadium is yet to be confirmed. It is likely to involve some kind of corporate sponsorship, and be know as something like the American Express Falmer Stadium, but it has been referred to for years simply as 'Falmer', even before bricks were laid. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase 'Falmer stadium' being used. On the Anfield point, the term Anfield is so much more widely associated with the ground than the area. Wikipedia is run in the interests of those seeking information. Virtually anyone searching for 'Falmer' will be searching for informtion on the ground. I think it would be petty to allow the technicality to jeopardise functionality. In time, and especially after the stadium has been officially named, maybe 'Falmer' should refer to the stadium, but for now there is clearly a case for disambiguation.Tescoid (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting to hear that. For what little these apocryphal observations are worth: as somebody who's been involved with the area but who is not a football fan, I've had a completely different experience. I've always heard "Falmer Stadium" used by absolutely everyone and honestly never just "Falmer" to refer to the stadium. It sounds like a very in-context term in football-based conversations to me. – Kieran T (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is interesting. I can honestly say my experience is exactly to the contrary. I know a lot of football fans refer to 'Brighton's new stadium' as 'Falmer'. Though this is just football fans. I would guess that the reach of notoriety of the term 'Falmer' stretched further with football connotations than without. Indeed, the village is a very small place which - to anyone who lives outside the area - will only know of because of the stadium. For what it's worth, on the region's Argus website, the 'Falmer webcam' records the stadium, not the village.Tescoid (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may well be right — but perhaps we'd need some evidence that footie fans outnumber those in the academic communities who know "Falmer" well as the name of the campus for either of the two universities there. (i.e as a short for "Falmer campus".) – Kieran T (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is why its a good thing that football fans don't rule the world :) To the wider world an unbuilt stadium is a fairly insignificant place. Jeni (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cannot understate how imortant this construction is to the supporters of that club, and I don't think it's unfair to say that it's more important to soccer fans worldwide than is the tiny village next to it. Either way, that is a debate that can be had another time. For now, I think the important to move the page to a disambiguation one. I'm surpised actually at how controversial this proposal is. The term 'Falmer' is rife with ambiguity.Tescoid (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falmer remains as an article about the village. "The final naming of the stadium is yet to be confirmed." Something from Elder Scrolls is not important enough to force disambiguation. Railway station articles are always subordinate to the place they serve. If the stadium actually gets named Falmer Stadium and it gets widely used as just "Falmer" then the decision can be reviewed. (Personally, I would have Anfield as an article about the area with a separate Anfield Stadium article. And aren't Falmer jeans notable enough to go in the disambiguation page?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, right now isn't the time to be worrying about this. Any speculations about the final name of the stadium are just that, speculations. Lets face it, it isn't even built yet! Revisit this issue when the stadium is open and see what needs to be done then. Jeni (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Having thought about this and read the above comments I have to oppose until such time as the stadium is officially named and the name 'Falmer' is in common usage. Dpmuk (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dpmuk. Cjc13 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Falmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Falmer. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falmer&oldid=1207176090"