Talk:Ashton Gate (stadium)

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

History[edit]

I am somewhat confused by the early history as set out here. The infobox says that the stadium was built & opened in 1904, yet the article says "Ashton Gate was the home of Bedminster F.C. until their 1900 merger with Bristol South End who played at St Johns Lane, and the merged team alternated between the two grounds until Ashton Gate become the permanent home of Bristol City in 1904." Can someone clarify this and identify precisely when the stadium was built/opened? An article on St Johns Lane would be interesting as well. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While a numeric majority of participants favored a move, opposing comments were by and large stronger in bringing up compelling arguments against the stadium being the primary topic for the name "Ashton Gate". As such, I find there is no consensus to move the articles. Cúchullain t/c 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– I think the stadium is the primary topic and that the shorter form "Ashton Gate" is its common name, rather than "Ashton Gate Stadium". My proposed naming would also be consistent with other football grounds in Great Britain, such as Anfield (Liverpool FC) and Anfield, Liverpool (its surrounding area) or Easter Road (Hibernian FC) and Easter Road, Edinburgh (a nearby thoroughfare). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking each of those examples: Hillsborough has many other uses, including the state residence of Northern Ireland. The official name of the old Arsenal ground was Arsenal Stadium, with Highbury used as a colloquial shorthand (like Parkhead / Celtic Park). I believe that the Southampton stadium is more commonly referred to in the longer form in match reports, while St. Mary's is a disambig page (similar scenario to Hillsborough). I'm not exactly sure what policy or guideline you are citing when referring to the "views of locals". It's not a planning issue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming on wp isn't a planning issue but possible moves of the stadium ( see Bristol City Stadium) have been/are a major planning issue locally.— Rod talk 08:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There being other uses for Ashton Gate supports the creation of a disambiguation page, either at Ashton Gate (disambiguation) or Ashton Gate itself. Being named first doesn't give something primacy, eg1 Perth (Australia) and Perth, Scotland; eg2 Boston (USA) v Boston, Lincolnshire. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But when the subjects share a name because they share the same physical location, that's distinctly different from equivalently named locations in different continents. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather agree with Trevj here, given the number of distinct "Ashton Gate *" articles, it makes sense to have the one which links them - the physical location - being the main one. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jmorrison230582 does your comment mean that you are changing the proposal from making the stadium the primary topic for Ashton Gate to having a dab page as the primary? Could you clarify?— Rod talk 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The only Ashton Gate I have heard of is a football ground. Never heard anyone refer to the ground as Ashton Gate Stadium.--EchetusXe 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal anecdotes are not a good argument. If you're a football fan, yes, likely you've only ever heard of the stadium. If you live in Bristol, you likely know of the suburb first. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may be an anecdote but it is indicative of the fact that Ashton Gate is more commonly known as a football ground than as an area of Bristol. Afterall there are many more football fans in the world than there are people who occupy Bristol.--EchetusXe 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it's not a suburb, it's in the suburb and council ward of Bedminster.[1] [2] It's a neighbourhood at best and has no official status. C679 11:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know, but I'm presuming the name is derived from a gate within the old city walls of the era. If I have time to research this and find it to be the case, I'll add it in. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Ashton Gate it says "A toll house at the western end of North Street still survives and indicates the origin of the area's name as a gate on the road to Ashton (now known as Long Ashton)."— Rod talk 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cloudz679, your sources can be discounted. All the first one says is that Ashton Gate became industrialised and in fact the second one gives more credence about Ashton Gate existing as it shows churches located in suburbs of Bristol, one of which is Ashton Gate. Further evidence that Ashton Gate exists is the various maps it appears on. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since "Ashton Gate Stadium is in Ashton Gate", the stadium would not have that name if it was elsewhere. The primary topic is what everything else is named after. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Bristol City F. C. plans to move to a new stadium within the next few years, in which case the Ashton Gate Stadium will be demolished, so I doubt it's the primary topic with respect to long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's the primary topic with respect to usage at the moment but it probably won't be in a decade or two. Not worth moving things around just to have to move them back again in a few years. Qwfp (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL. The new stadium project is in planning hell. It was intended for Bristol to be one of the host cities if England had won the right to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup, with a new stadium needed to provide sufficient capacity for World Cup matches. The bid was lost to Russia and the new stadium project has since run into planning difficulties. More recently, plans have been announced to redevelop Ashton Gate by rebuilding two of its stands. Bristol City FC has said that it will decide between the two options (new stadium or redevelopment) next month [3]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. In light of that, let's postpone this decision on moving the pages until next month after Bristol City FC have made their decision on whether to move stadia. No need to rush into things. Qwfp (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwfp: - you do realise that even if this stadium is demolished, our article on it would not be? GiantSnowman 13:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. But I believe it wouldn't then remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the long term. Qwfp (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the stadium is the primary topic now, but it might not be in the future. Any decision to close it or otherwise would not make the "area" the primary topic. C679 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (having already !voted above). Similar discussions seem to take place elsewhere occasionally (e.g. at Talk:Android (software), Talk:Avatar). When subjects give rise to subsequent names, surely we should use common sense to decide on a primary topic, rather than GHits or other such method comparably unfair to historical name usage. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ashton Gate revisited[edit]

Following the decision of no consensus, Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) has now proposed a move at Talk:Ashton Gate. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The stadium is almost always referred to simply as "Ashton Gate" (see the BBC's usage), and it is clearly the primary topic for "Ashton Gate" – the pageviews for the past 30 days are 3,613 for the stadium, 187 for the railway station, 178 for the district and 69 for the brewery – the stadium accounting for 89% of all page views (if anyone is concerned that the peak a couple of days ago skews the figures, the December page views were 2,909, 216, 169 and 65 respectively – the stadium still at 87%). Also, one of the three oppose !votes in the previous discussion was apparently due to plans to close the stadium – this is no longer happening and the club is redeveloping it instead. A hatnote can be added to the article directing readers to the (moved) DAB page. Number 57 23:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, also malformed; procedural close Ashton Gate is the name of Ashton Gate, Bristol, a district of Bristol, Ashton Gate Stadium, a football stadium located in Ashton Gate, Bristol, home to Bristol City FC, Ashton Gate railway station, a disused railway station located in Ashton Gate, Bristol, Ashton Gate Brewery Co, a brewery located in Ashton Gate, Bristol In ictu oculi (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @In ictu oculi: (a) How is this malformed? (b) I have made it clear in the rationale that there are other uses, but that this is the primary topic. What is the rationale for your oppose? Number 57 23:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having tried to fathom what you meant about it being malformed, I can only assume it's because I didn't formally nominate the DAB page (although it's quite clear that this was intended as well). I've done this now. Number 57 23:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. Still oppose since books quite clearly indicate that the stadium fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC second criteria. The proposed ambiguated title also fails 3 of 5 WP:CRITERIA, as deliberate ambiguations often do. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I'm not sure how the stadium fails "long-term significance". It's one of the oldest football stadiums in England (opened 1887) and was arguably at its most notable in the late 1970s when Bristol City were in the top division. Also, which three of the criteria does it fail? I can understand your logic on precision and conciseness, although exceptions for both are made for the primary topic, but none of the others seem to apply (as it clearly passes recognisability and naturalness, I can only guess at consistency, but there isn't any consistent naming format for stadium articles – some have "Stadium" appended, others don't). Number 57 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it is only called Ashton Gate Stadium because it is located in the community of Ashton Gate. Even the official website at http://www.ashtongatestadium.co.uk/ knows it should be called "Ashton Gate Stadium". Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ashton Gate the suburb is also commonly referred to as "Ashton Gate" (not sure how else people in Bristol would refer to it). Hillsborough is a similar case - outside Sheffield it might often be taken as meaning Hillsborough Stadium, but locally is more likely to refer to to Hillsborough the suburb. So also Headingley Stadium and Headingley.--Mhockey (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhockey: Of course the suburb is also referred to as "Ashton Gate", but when there are multiple subjects referred to by one title, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Hillsborough is not a comparable example as the stadium is not the primary topic (the disaster gets far more views than the stadium – 22,703 in the last months vs 5,101 for the stadium); likewise, Headingley Stadium is not the primary topic, as the suburb gets a similar number of pageviews. A more accurate comparison to draw would be Anfield (the stadium) located in Anfield, Liverpool (the stadium gets 93% of the pageviews for the two). Number 57 08:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comparison and contrast with Anfield makes the point. Liverpool F.C. and its stadium are world-famous. Bristol City and its stadium are not.--Mhockey (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mhockey: Then how about Deepdale/Deepdale, Preston if you prefer lower division comparisons? Number 57 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is the WP:OSE argument. As far as I can see there has not been a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion on Deepdale, but if there was I suspect that its primary status would not survive. But I do not know enough about the geography of Preston to know for sure.--Mhockey (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Mhockey: If you're saying OSE is an inappropriate argument, why did you bring up Hillsborough and Headingley? Number 57 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, I'm not convinced by PRIMARYTOPIC. Keep it as a dab. GiantSnowman 18:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: Just out of interest, what would convince you that it was the primary topic? Number 57 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mine was the "one of the three oppose !votes in the previous discussion [...] due to plans to close the stadium", and as this is no longer planned, I agree that the football stadium is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and see no reason not to move the articles as proposed. Qwfp (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and comment - it was clear before there was no clear primary topic, both in the above one and Talk:Ashton_Gate,_Bristol#Requested move which is also relevant here. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Simply south: The pageview stats (89% for the stadium) make it very clear that there is a primary topic. What evidence do you have to back up your assertion that it isn't? Number 57 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Figures aren't everything. Some people do the Google Test. If you do that, it turns out both the Primary School and the former\proposed railway station have more hits. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Simply south: How did you do the Google Test? When I Google Ashton Gate, all the hits on the first page are for the stadium, 7 out of the 10 on the second page are for the stadium. Over 60 of the first 100 are for the stadium. Number 57 22:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 June 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 17:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Gate Stadium → Ashton Gate (stadium) – There is consensus that the stadium isn't primary topic. However, the stadium is usually called Ashton Gate, and not "Ashton Gate Stadium". Therefore it should be disambiguated by "(stadium)". 90.254.6.237 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GiantSnowman 11:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I maintain that the stadium is the primary topic and should be moved to simply Ashton Gate; it has 91% of the pageviews of the four topics listed on the disambiguation page. None of the arguments in the last RM opposing the move held water. Number 57 11:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I can see from sources from the old BBC Sport version that they used "Ashton Gate" [4][5] as well as a book I have (2010-11) where it is viewable online. Unsure why this proposed target was not considered in the other RMs seen on this talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:10, 26 June 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:Ashton_Gate_(stadium)&oldid=1218569513"