→Proposed Move: re - sorry misread |
→Proposed Move: Proposing the question now to be considered |
||
Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
::::That is assuming a naive approach to searches, especially as Plymouth as in the car, the colony and the MA town are all clearly visible in the list if you search for "ply". All we know is the figures that went to each page and we cannot really speculate as to the readers intentions and how many got to this page in error. I would say that [[Plymouth (disambiguation)]] gets about 2k views a month, which is a probable indication that not that many arrive here looking for something other than the UK or MA settlements. |
::::That is assuming a naive approach to searches, especially as Plymouth as in the car, the colony and the MA town are all clearly visible in the list if you search for "ply". All we know is the figures that went to each page and we cannot really speculate as to the readers intentions and how many got to this page in error. I would say that [[Plymouth (disambiguation)]] gets about 2k views a month, which is a probable indication that not that many arrive here looking for something other than the UK or MA settlements. |
||
::::Whoops, misread that point (you aren't saying traffic to this page is inflated). I would say traffic stats are not really supposed to be the decisive factor in anything, though they are important.--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilf]][[commons:User:Nilfanion|anion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::Whoops, misread that point (you aren't saying traffic to this page is inflated). I would say traffic stats are not really supposed to be the decisive factor in anything, though they are important.--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilf]][[commons:User:Nilfanion|anion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::In the same space we could also assume that after typing in "''Plymouth''" into the search box in the wiki that a user wanting the Barracuda would see ''Plymouth (automobile)'' as a search/page option and click that over the ''Plymouth'' option. Although I see this is not the point you are trying to make, born2cycle. But still, an assumption is still an assumption no matter how liberal or conservative the numbers are, and unless we are a [[social psychologist]]/[[social neuroscience|scientist]] we cannot attempt to qualify/verify these assumptions. So can I suggest that we do what OSX says and stick to, not ignore (or theorise) the facts: |
|||
:::::I don't think anyone on the "oppose" side of the discussion has tried to ignore the page hits facts for a while now. Some discussion has occurred about what should be included and the time span used to quantify this (this is more addressing technicalities rather than trying to ignore them). I do feel that even if we were to ignore Plymouth Colony (please see my comments on this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth&action=historysubmit&diff=392910075&oldid=392905788 above]) and look at this over a period of a year then Plymouth, Devon would still not come out with a majority as the primary topic according to this test alone. But then we have the second test of [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] (and last one in this case) of the incoming links (which at the moment appears to be ignored by OSX and taken into account by born2cycle). This test states that there is a clear primary topic (under this test) which is also a fact. |
|||
:::::So I suppose the argument should now boil down to, and this is what a closing admin needs to think about: "'''Does the fact that one test of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not show a clear primary topic out-weigh the fact that the other test does show a clear primary topic?'''" This is what born2cycle and I have been discussing and is where we take opposite views on. I personally believe that where the dichotomy exists between ''Topic A'' and ''Topic B'' then an even split on the facts/tests should indicate that there is no primary topic; but in this case the dichotomy exists between ''Topic A'' and ''No topic'', so I believe that here the case falls with ''Plymouth, Devon'' being the primary topic. [[User:Zangar|Zangar]] ([[User talk:Zangar|talk]]) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:48, 26 October 2010
Plymouth has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Plymouth Gin?
Why hasnt anyone mentioned the great Plymouth Gin? Basic ingredient in a Giblet and all? The gin is the only reason i've heard about the town (with all respect:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy McDandy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It has not been mentioned in the economy section of the article. Jolly Ω Janner 12:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Flag of Plymouth
It occurs to me that some cities have flags, but I haven't seen the Flag of Plymouth anywhere on the wiki, such as in List of British Flags. A quick look on the net found one verbal description, but no pictures. I remember the council used to fly a very large specimen from their main flagpole outside the civic centre, where they'd fly the stars and stripes on 4th July and so on. The flag is the shield from the coat of arms (possibly with simplified black towers) on a red field. Not being able to find one on the net leads me to thinking someone could make one, but yet again we'd need an RS. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- In fact walking today through Royal Parade there is a red flag, on a high flagpole at the rear of the Civic Centre, up on a roof. You never know, I might get a picture of it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please do and upload to commons. Sam Davidson (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, you landlubbers, in a fit of madness at 2am I have now uploaded free crappy images taken from my iPhone back in December last year of the flag, and I've set up a page Flag of Plymouth, which might well have been speedily deleted by tomorrow. Anyway, what I think might be needed would be a nice svg file of the flag in a more schematic form, (which I don't know how to do), and maybe the more artistic could get a better picture. Please drop by the page and discussion page and have a look - cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agatha Christie
As a Frenchmen, it's not up to me to say what to put in this page.
But as a father, I can tell you that one of the few landmarks visited by my daughter during her visit of the city with her class was "Agatha Christie's Greenway house".
Shouldn't she be mentioned among the people and/or the places to see in the city ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.148.175 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. We only write about notable residents or people who have contributed to the city greatly in articles about cities. Agatha Christie is more notable for Torquay and "Agatha Christie's Greenway house" is not a notable landmark. Jolly Ω Janner 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agatha Christie's Greenway House is in Galmpton anyway, nothing to do with Plymouth. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation required
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to this article. No arguments at US or British centralism will be accounted for. Is there any reason this city occupies this article instead of Plymouth (disambiguation). I'd have thought at the very least the fact that more than just cities share this name would have precluded the lack of disambiguation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's a lengthy archive of the previous request and an even older one here. The previous one reached no consensus: I believe mainly because some people felt it was the primary topic, whereas others felt it wasn't (in a nutshell). Jolly Ω Janner 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus can change and silence is agreement. There is no way that a significant enough portion of searches for "Plymouth" could turn up only the British city as a primary topic. The car company alone gets one third as many hits as this ambiguous title. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not discussing whether it should be moved; just informing you of previous requests. If you really feel that consensus will be formed this time round, then follow the procedure listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves to initiate the discussion process. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've initiated it here, at the talk page of the article in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe you need to specify the name you wish to move this page to using the template {{subst:move|NewName}}: either Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England I think is what you're looking for. Jolly Ω Janner 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is either style more accepted than the other for British articles? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Plymouth, Devon is prefered per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. Jolly Ω Janner 10:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alrightly. Starting a new section to keep things clean. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Plymouth, Devon is prefered per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. Jolly Ω Janner 10:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is either style more accepted than the other for British articles? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe you need to specify the name you wish to move this page to using the template {{subst:move|NewName}}: either Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England I think is what you're looking for. Jolly Ω Janner 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've initiated it here, at the talk page of the article in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not discussing whether it should be moved; just informing you of previous requests. If you really feel that consensus will be formed this time round, then follow the procedure listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves to initiate the discussion process. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus can change and silence is agreement. There is no way that a significant enough portion of searches for "Plymouth" could turn up only the British city as a primary topic. The car company alone gets one third as many hits as this ambiguous title. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Move
Plymouth → Plymouth, Devon — as both the place and the automobile could be considered primary topics, a dab is far more appropriate at directing users to the proper page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Primary topic should also be used: see my numbers below. This article is not the most hit article named "Plymouth", and only commands about a quarter of the traffic of articles named "Plymouth". Not enough for a primary topic Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note, the same move was discussed in 2006 (Talk:Plymouth/Archive_1#Requested_move) and in 2008 (Talk:Plymouth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move). Fæ (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note to mention an informal discussion at Talk:Plymouth/Archive 1#Plymouth should not redirect to this page going on from 2006-2008. Jolly Ω Janner 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Plymouth, a British city of ca. 250,000 people, globally significant port for >500 years (implicated in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, site of the Pilgrim Fathers departing Britain, and a key port in the Transatlantic slave trade) seems more likely to be the primary topic than the (far smaller) city in the US established by the Pilgrim Fathers and far more likely than a brand of car only available in 2 countries. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Really, because I believe a car manufactured by Plymouth known as the Q was sold in England beginning in 1928. Also, Plymouth sold twice as many cars as people living in the English town, per year, after the 1960s. Both are very notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's a poor reasoning. Cars come and go just like people. If you totalled up the amount of people who have lived and gone in Plymouth, then the figure would be well into the millions... Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, cars and people come and go. However, 450,000 cars a year over 40 years, not taking into account that the number likely climbed, is 18 million. This is a major car marque, similar to... oooh, let's say, Lincoln. Lincoln Nebraska had a 2008 estimated population of... wait for it... 250,000! Lincoln is a second-tier car brand (a marque owned by Ford). Does Lincoln link to the Nebraska city, clearly the forerunner to the cars by half a century? Nope. Surprisingly it doesn't go straight to the British place either (though I'm sure you'd argue that's the primary topic). It goes to a disambiguation page, instead, which begins:
- That's a poor reasoning. Cars come and go just like people. If you totalled up the amount of people who have lived and gone in Plymouth, then the figure would be well into the millions... Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Lincoln commonly refers to:
- Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States
- Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England
- Lincoln (automobile), a luxury brand of the Ford Motor Company
- Lincoln, Nebraska, the state's capital
- Lincoln (surname), people with the surname Lincoln
Lincoln may also refer to:
- Fancy that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The decissions for Lincoln has little bearing to this case. You made this move request individually rather than collectively as a set of move requests, so this case should be treated with specifics related to Plymouth(s). Examples of things done on Wikipedia (unless it's a policy) is not a way to base other decisions. Jolly Ω Janner 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but common sense is. Two very important topics = no primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I, and seemingly Ilikeeatingwaffles, would not regard a car brand as a very important topic. Jolly Ω Janner 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Waffles, you need to have a better reason than "this city's been around longer" to justify primary topic. If you look at the
- I, and seemingly Ilikeeatingwaffles, would not regard a car brand as a very important topic. Jolly Ω Janner 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, but common sense is. Two very important topics = no primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The decissions for Lincoln has little bearing to this case. You made this move request individually rather than collectively as a set of move requests, so this case should be treated with specifics related to Plymouth(s). Examples of things done on Wikipedia (unless it's a policy) is not a way to base other decisions. Jolly Ω Janner 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fancy that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - there would have to be a reasonable case in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Using the suggested criteria given the case for a move is too weak. Fæ (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- This only meets one criteria listed on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (article pageviews, in which it receives around double the pagehits as the primary topic placeholder). Googlehits results are mixed for the first several pages of web[1] and news[2][3]. For an image search, the vehicle has clear supremacy.
- I'd even propose a one month test. The results of the first two weeks would be ignored, and the results of the second two weeks used to see how "primary" the English city is in comparison to the vehicle or other Plymouth's. During the test, the primary topic would be the dab page. If in one month it is shown that the British place gets more results than the others put together, then it is the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having a large number of car pics on the internet is probably less convincing than having top listing in Google searches and the most common match on the first page of Google. I find the Wikipedia pagecount history fairly useful, the city appearing around 2½ times more visited than the car article. There is a basic taxonomic rationale, in that all other things called "Plymouth" originated from the English city and whether someone searching for "Plymouth" on Wikipedia would expect to find the original city first with a dab page link as a hat-note. I'm not that keen on just tracking the numbers against the suggested guideline criteria as some sort of proof, the guidelines themselves quite clearly suggest that "decisions are made by discussion between editors" and that such statistics can only support this discussion. You are free to tabulate or refine comparative statistics for everyone to consider, but I would recommend we let the discussion naturally evolve a consensus in the first instance. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're correct. I've taken the liberty on that note to invite the automobile wikiproject into this discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Are you going to invite any other non-car-related project members to contribute in order to balance the discussion? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm sure the other side of the argument would be more than willing to call to the British wikiproject. It's not a vote after all, it's the arguments made that matter. The move request will also bring plenty of neutral eyes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Raised as you suggested in order to account for any problems with a bias to automobile wikiproject members. Fæ (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm sure the other side of the argument would be more than willing to call to the British wikiproject. It's not a vote after all, it's the arguments made that matter. The move request will also bring plenty of neutral eyes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Are you going to invite any other non-car-related project members to contribute in order to balance the discussion? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're correct. I've taken the liberty on that note to invite the automobile wikiproject into this discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having a large number of car pics on the internet is probably less convincing than having top listing in Google searches and the most common match on the first page of Google. I find the Wikipedia pagecount history fairly useful, the city appearing around 2½ times more visited than the car article. There is a basic taxonomic rationale, in that all other things called "Plymouth" originated from the English city and whether someone searching for "Plymouth" on Wikipedia would expect to find the original city first with a dab page link as a hat-note. I'm not that keen on just tracking the numbers against the suggested guideline criteria as some sort of proof, the guidelines themselves quite clearly suggest that "decisions are made by discussion between editors" and that such statistics can only support this discussion. You are free to tabulate or refine comparative statistics for everyone to consider, but I would recommend we let the discussion naturally evolve a consensus in the first instance. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'll admit I'm partisan, but reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I feel that the argument is weaker than last time. I think the city is the primary topic, especially given the expansion of pages spinning off from that. Agree with Fæ that an argument against that looks weak. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The argument is that its not the primary topic to anybody in North America. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- See below about primary topic Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The argument is that its not the primary topic to anybody in North America. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support- Can't say I care very strongly either way, I reckon a disambiguation page would be the best way to go. If anyone cares, I'm Swedish, live in NYC, am a member of the automotive project, and generally loathe Plymouths (cars). Couldn't be happier that the brand no longer exists, but I still think that its importance as far as the encyclopedia is concerned is high enough to justify disambiguation. Would be interesting to see what it does to the page hits for the two topics. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will second that. They really are awful cars (especially the Plymouth Voyagers with the exterior wood trim on the doors—ghastly). The Prowler is a close second though. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support (a disambiguation page) Should be noted that Plymouth, England got 49,896, but Plymouth Colony got 64,603 hits, and combined, Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile) are viewed almost as much as Plymouth. Not to mention all the other stuff named Plymouth. That means the English city only commands about 25-30% of the traffic of titles named "Plymouth". Usually for a primary topic you need 50-60 Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - The car company was named after the American colony which was named after the British town. The car brand is defunct. Both towns have certain claims to history but neither town is particularly high in current global news (at least I don't hear anything about them here in Australia). Any favourite is more related to whether you are British, American or a muscle car fan. Disambiguation pages are exactly for cases like this where there is no clear winner. Let 'Plymouth' be the disambiguation page and all the others use their full name. Stepho (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support (a disambiguation page): I was going to oppose this, but "Plymouth" as the UK city does not seem to be "primary topic enough" to be assigned the un-dismabiguated title. This is a bit of a UK versus US situation, where the city is the primary topic in the former, with the car the primary topic in the latter. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Plymouth should be a disambiguation page. Age and population do not make a primary topic. DC T•C 05:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - we went through all this a couple of years ago, over at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation). Plymouth is the major centre for the whole Devon and Cornwall region, so the widest guess for its metro population would be 1.6 million. It is also a major naval centre too, and as such has played a significant role in UK history. IMHO a primary topic over smaller settlements and the motor company. — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's great and all, and I am sure one could come up with a similar rant for the automotive version, but the argument here is whether Plymouth as the UK city is the primary usage. The answer is yes if one was to consider only the UK perspective, but this is not the case elsewhere. Considering that 54 percent of Americans are "unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa" and 75 percent could not find Indonesia on a world map (according to the National Geographic Society), it would be safe to claim a similar level of illiteracy would apply to Plymouth in the United Kingdom. Now I am not defending this ignorance, I am just pointing out that the primary topic differs between countries, and therefore no single topic can be fairly assigned the un-dismabiguated title. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- For what its worth, the metro population is not significantly more than that of the city - 500,000 would be an overestimate.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Population and history are not major factors to be considered, and 1.6 million can't be right. Amakura, focus on the reasoning in PRIMARYTOPIC; using the criteria there, there CLEARLY is no primary topic Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Statistics are not the most important thing in the world, and there are other measures mentioned in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as useful guidance aside from the page views. Equating car production with population is a particularly poor comparison - you can't compare a car to a human in any meaningful way. In terms of incoming links: There are 3,320 to Plymouth, 656 to Plymouth, Massachusetts and 215 to Plymouth (automobile). This partially is a reflection of the fact that Plymouth, Devon is clearly the most important usage in a historical sense. A real problem underlying this dispute is a type of recentism, in that historical facts are irrelevant and its the current state that matters. In general, the opposes cite the historical importance of the Devon city, whilst the supports ignore this and look at the here and now. Stepho's comment "at least I don't hear anything about them [in the news] here in Australia" is an illustration of this. Which is more correct? The answer depends on what the readers are looking for ultimately - is historical or current info more important?
- One thing I would say is that extended discussion as to which topic is primary is a pretty clear indicator that there is no primary topic, which IMO is more decisive than any number of statistics. If this discussion reaches "no consensus" that should be interpreted as moving this page to Plymouth, Devon not a maintenance of the status quo - if the page was disambiguated and this discussion was to move this Plymouth to the primary page nothing would be moved.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Boring, but spot on (much more fun to argue about the respective value of Devon cream versus minivans with fake woodgrain). ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 15:00ish, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No consensus on a proposal means the proposal does not have support. No action can be justified based on a lack of consensus. If this proposal fails to get support and the page is moved, then it should be moved back and probably discussed yet again... Fæ (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No consensus in the case of a disambiguation page would indicate an equally opposing opinion on what the primary topic is. Logically it would follow that no topic is the primary topic. I don't see the harm from trying it out for a month. The number of incoming links is only indicative of how many pages link to Plymouth (not to Plymouth, Devon, and how developed British geographic articles are. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The incoming links figures I quoted include those going via Plymouth, England, Plymouth, Devon (and also Plymouth, MA). A lot of the links to this page are British geography, but if you remove all of those you'd still get much more than the others. For example there's 174 incoming links just from articles about US Navy ships. Judging the significance of a link is extremely hard to evaluate but the very high figure for the Devon Plymouth is not merely the result of a higher quantity/quality of articles on British geography (it looks like there's hundreds of links from biographies).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal under discussion is whether to move this page. A no consensus result is insufficient justification to move the page. If you wish to create a different proposal then please do so once this one is closed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's unreasonable and bureaucratic. The proposal is making Plymouth (disambiguation) the primary topic. Moving this page is the result required in order to act on that proposal. The discussion is "what is the primary topic for Plymouth"; not "do you want to move this article from its current title?". A no consensus result means nobody agrees on what the primary topic is, and that there is no primary topic. The only way to keep the article here would be to reach a consensus that Plymouth, Devon IS the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Floydian, you have proposed to move this article (as well as the dab page together). If there is no consensus (sometimes 66% in agreement, but don't get technical) in agreement with your proposal, then your proposed move will not go ahead and everything will stay as it is. And yes, Wikipedia is bureaucratic and sometimes shit at decision making, I'm afraid. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're grasping at straws, and using your own weaselly wording to get past the fact that not everyone agrees.[4]] Right before I posted that, you essentially posted that this can't be a discussion, it has to be a formal move request. So I made the formal request to appease you. The fact remains that this is at the heart of this discussion, not your slithering manipulation.[5] I made it clear at the outset, and am reiterating it now for anybody else who is unclear: This is a discussion about what the primary topic is, NOT a discussion of whether to move the current article. That is something that will happen consequentially. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've just never seen move proposals like this before. I still stand by the fact that this article is the primary topic for "Plymouth". Jolly Ω Janner 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize. An RfC would have been the appropriate course of action. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've just never seen move proposals like this before. I still stand by the fact that this article is the primary topic for "Plymouth". Jolly Ω Janner 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're grasping at straws, and using your own weaselly wording to get past the fact that not everyone agrees.[4]] Right before I posted that, you essentially posted that this can't be a discussion, it has to be a formal move request. So I made the formal request to appease you. The fact remains that this is at the heart of this discussion, not your slithering manipulation.[5] I made it clear at the outset, and am reiterating it now for anybody else who is unclear: This is a discussion about what the primary topic is, NOT a discussion of whether to move the current article. That is something that will happen consequentially. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Floydian, you have proposed to move this article (as well as the dab page together). If there is no consensus (sometimes 66% in agreement, but don't get technical) in agreement with your proposal, then your proposed move will not go ahead and everything will stay as it is. And yes, Wikipedia is bureaucratic and sometimes shit at decision making, I'm afraid. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's unreasonable and bureaucratic. The proposal is making Plymouth (disambiguation) the primary topic. Moving this page is the result required in order to act on that proposal. The discussion is "what is the primary topic for Plymouth"; not "do you want to move this article from its current title?". A no consensus result means nobody agrees on what the primary topic is, and that there is no primary topic. The only way to keep the article here would be to reach a consensus that Plymouth, Devon IS the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No consensus in the case of a disambiguation page would indicate an equally opposing opinion on what the primary topic is. Logically it would follow that no topic is the primary topic. I don't see the harm from trying it out for a month. The number of incoming links is only indicative of how many pages link to Plymouth (not to Plymouth, Devon, and how developed British geographic articles are. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- No consensus on a proposal means the proposal does not have support. No action can be justified based on a lack of consensus. If this proposal fails to get support and the page is moved, then it should be moved back and probably discussed yet again... Fæ (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Boring, but spot on (much more fun to argue about the respective value of Devon cream versus minivans with fake woodgrain). ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 15:00ish, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Compromise suggestion There's likely to be seasonal variation in traffic: more looking for Plymouth colony than for the car or than for the English city in the fall season as the U.S. Thanksgiving Day comes up. And people think of muscle cars more in the summer. So set up a bot to rotate primary usage designation quarterly, with one quarter having the disambiguation page up. :) --doncram (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why not just have a Solomon-style "compromise" that has the disambiguation all the time. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall Solomon stopped short of actually 'disambiguating' the kid. The 'wise' bit was in his determining which was the 'primary' mother without destroying anything. Blakkandekka (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why not just have a Solomon-style "compromise" that has the disambiguation all the time. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is just UK-bias. In Canada, the car company would be the primary meaning. In the US it would be the Plymouth colony and its rock or the car company. Wikipedia says that such matters should have a disambiguation page at the prime location. Instead we have a UK city, which doesn't even have a million residents, as primary. Millions of North Americans recognize the car company, much more than some UK city. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as per reasoning of Fæ and Amakuru. The incomming links and historical value is too much to be ignored. @doncram: Although I praise compromise suggestions (well done for making one!) and generally support a compromise, I think the one you suggested is not really workable and would not be satisfactory to either camp. Has anything like that been done before? Zangar (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Historical value is not a valid reason for a primary topic, and note that Plymouth Colony has almost as much historical significance. You need to base an argument on valid points, such as navigation utility Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Plymouth Colony would ever be referred to as "Plymouth", though. The article does not list it as an alternative name for the colony, so there wouldn't be any navigation problems there. The number of page views that the dismabiguation page gets is far less than Plymouth, indicating that very few people have to navigate away from this article once arriving. Jolly Ω Janner 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or that they give up upon arriving at some unknown Plymouth... Or that they then proceed to use the search bar to find the other, properly disambiguated Plymouth that they were seeking in the first place. Too many unknowns. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Plymouth Colony would ever be referred to as "Plymouth", though. The article does not list it as an alternative name for the colony, so there wouldn't be any navigation problems there. The number of page views that the dismabiguation page gets is far less than Plymouth, indicating that very few people have to navigate away from this article once arriving. Jolly Ω Janner 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Historical value is not a valid reason for a primary topic, and note that Plymouth Colony has almost as much historical significance. You need to base an argument on valid points, such as navigation utility Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support; no clear-cut primary topic here. Powers T 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The car has not been made for nearly 10 years. The first 48 hits on Google refer to the city (excluding 1 hit for WP).--Mhockey (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bear in mind Google returns localised results - not surprising a Brit gets Plymouth, Devon dominating :)--Nilfanion (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. I get two results for UK, one for the NHL, two for Massachusetts, one for the university, three for the car (plus all the images) and one for the Plymouth Council of Canada. The fact that they haven't been made for 10 years means absolutely nothing. Chrystler refocused, hence why their cars all changed after Plymouth dissolved. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Incoming links favour this article, and I don't think that many are incorrectly targeted. However, more importantly this is the most viewed topic of the 4 most important (Plymouth, Devon, Plymouth, Massachusetts, Plymouth (automobile) and Plymouth Colony). The traffic for Plymouth Colony especially and to a lesser extent for Plymouth, MA is noticeably dependent on the time of year; due to the small matter of Thanksgiving. eg in March the stats tell a different story to at present: this page got 32k, Plymouth, MA 11k, the car 14k and the colony 22k. In December, the colony is most viewed (as this is a direct result of a mention on Main page it should be discounted). Now 32k (of 79k) is not decisively most of the traffic, but show this is the most important topic of the name and does get the most incoming links from other articles (Plymouth Colony gets 571 so combined for other 3 major uses is less than half to here, even if you discount the 424 template links (which may also have prose links) and include these for the others).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rephrase this slightly - note that my oppose is relatively on the "weak" side. Traffic stats indicate the city is the most frequent usage. Plymouth Colony is at times more popular, but this is a temporal phenomenon (it had a jump in popularity coinciding N American schools returning and will fall off again by Christmas). However, Incoming links tell a completely different story - Plymouth, Devon = 3,272, Plymouth, Massachusetts = 667, Plymouth (automobile) = 288, Plymouth Colony = 564. Total count for Devon is more than double the other 3 uses asserted to be important.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm doubtful that the automobile brand ever approached the city so far as primary usage of the term goes, always being just a budget brand of Chrysler rather than an independent maker, but now it's out of production its claim is even less. And Chrysler obviously realise this, or they would still use it! Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Giving the primary use to the community is rather British-centric and doesn't take the world view into account. I argue that the automobile was the primary topic in the United States before the automobile production stopped. So there is no clear cut primary topic when you consider the world view. It is not one of the most prominent cities in the world so that's no reason to make it primary. This move has been brought up several times before and the commenting was skewed. Having only 32k of 79k traffic for the community means that over half of the people went to the wrong page! Royalbroil 05:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that half the people went to the wrong page. First of all, few people would search "Plymouth" when looking for "Plymouth Colony" and second of all, the disambiguation page gets a tiny number of page views, indicating that very few people landed at the wrong Plymouth and has to go through the dab page to find the right article. Most people get to Wikipedia via Google and now even Wikipedia has an interactive search bar, which helps people to spot the right article as they type it. Jolly Ω Janner 12:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support (a disambiguation page) Like Purplebackpack89, I feel there is a significant enough traffic split here that primary topic is blurry, particularly when regional factors are incorporated. As noted by 76.66.198.128, the car is the primary topic in Canada, Plymouth, Massachusetts & Plymouth Colony are likely US primary topic and Plymouth, Devon being primary in the UK. Plymouth may receive the most traffic, but it's not a convincing nor blow-out lead. Likewise, I don't think you can classify the Plymouth Colony traffic as being the result of one day. Since about the 30 Aug its been pulling in an average of 2-3K daily[6][7][8] and 23 Dec works out to be only about 4.5K[9], so its not a one-day-wonder type article. All added together Plymouth is not pulling in the 50%+ traffic often needed to be classified the primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Some random North American car is barely known outside of that area and a handful of little places over there, hardly constitutes a primary topic case? Jeni (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Handful of little places?" Seriously, the first city in New England is a "little place?" A major American colony (which I might add outhits your English city 2:1) is a "little place". One of the top 10-15 American car brands for half a century "some random North American car". Read LABattBoy's comment above; also remember to keep a global perspective; many more people who use this live in North America than in England Purplebackpack89 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what data you're looking at, Purplebackpack, but in Feb 2010: Plymouth (23,699) vs Plymouth Colony (20,230). Not quite the 2:1 ratio as you suggested, not to mention that Plymouth Colony isn't used as "Plymouth", maybe "New Plymouth", but it's not like anyone refers to "New York" as "York". Jolly Ω Janner 00:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- First off, I have never heard Plymouth Colony referred to as "New Plymouth", I have only heard it referred to as "Plymouth". The term New Plymouth went out with the (16)'90s. And if you lot at hit counts, if you looked at something more recent, you'd find the margin was a lot farther between the Colony and the English city. And if Plymouth Colony is even dead even with Plymouth, England, that brings the primary topic call into serious question Purplebackpack89 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article on Plymouth Coloony only lists "New Plymouth" as an alternative name and not "Plymouth". I cannot just take your word that it's refered to as "Plymouth". Jolly Ω Janner 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Handful of little places?" Seriously, the first city in New England is a "little place?" A major American colony (which I might add outhits your English city 2:1) is a "little place". One of the top 10-15 American car brands for half a century "some random North American car". Read LABattBoy's comment above; also remember to keep a global perspective; many more people who use this live in North America than in England Purplebackpack89 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - To be honest I have never herd of the Plymouth in the motorist sense and I bet most of the English speaking world doesn't know what it is either. Just because its the main topic in Canada doesn't make it more important because its not the main topic in the UK, US, AU and NZ. Anyone who wants Plymouth Colony and just types Plymouth is at their own fault because the place is not called Plymouth, but Plymouth Colony its like calling Stratford-upon-Avon just Stratford.Likelife (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose — the city of Plymouth is the primary topic. Although it is not the primary topic in US and Canada, that does not mean Wikipedia should not treat it as the primary topic, because all parts of the world have localised bias. Ignoring the bias of both the US & Canada and the UK, the city stands out as the one and only primary topic for the word "Plymouth". Outside of US and Canada, no one would have heard of the car company and would not associate the town in Massachusetts. The city, having its own history and culture has international significance, not just historical, but current with a large international-reaching university and the largest naval base in Europe. On a technical note, the city receives more page views than the town in Massachusetts, the car brand and the disambiguation page added together (note that the disambiguation page has a tiny number of page views indicating that very few people navigate away from the city article upon finding it; the other article's page views are good estimates). Jolly Ω Janner 12:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment as of Jolly's oppose, I count 10 opposes and 9 support. 8 opposers are from the U.K. and I'm unable to determine where 2 are from. There are 4 supports from the U.S. and the rest of the supports are from other places around the world. Several of the supporters are clearly automobile people like I am. I urge the person who closes this discussion to consider the final tallies on these number to get the world view of this discussion as this should be decided for the reader and take out the biases of the Wikipedians. Royalbroil 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- That seems unfair if someone put forward a good reason to oppose/support the move and was disregarded because they are from a so-called "bias" country. Jolly Ω Janner 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like the Ireland naming farce all over again if I'm honest! Jeni (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can only assume you have been careful to only make statements about people who have declared where they live on their user pages rather than jumping to conclusions based on project memberships or any other indirect analysis. Unfortunately this puts unnecessary focus on people who have not made any direct declaration of personal details. If anyone is tempted to pursue such analysis, please carefully take into account the WP:PRIVACY policy before making further statements here about the nature of contributors. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's only wise to consider the weight of regional input. If 50 British users say OPPOSE and 10 from Canada, 15 from the US, 2 from India, 1 from South Africa, 2 from China, 5 Europeans (other than Britain) and 3 British users SUPPORT, then obviously there is a localized bias that should be accounted for, despite that 50 to 38 count against the motion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it seems highly unwise. The privacy of contributors to Wikipedia is protected by policy, attempting to classify contributors to this discussion, challenging them about their nationality or to pressure them to declare where they live is against policy and may be treated as an attempt at outing. Fæ (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fay, if they post their nationality on their User page (and a great many due), we have not violated privacy by ascertaining it Purplebackpack89 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, contributors are free to post information about themselves on their user pages. My point is that analysing user pages on an unclear basis and then synthesizing this information is highlighting minority groups and putting pressure on people to explain who they are as part of contributing here. If we were to limit a discussion by saying "Black Americans only please" or "No Arabs thankyou" this would be considered strictly against policy, counting up !votes by nationality is offensive and marginalizes contributions on exactly the same principles. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fay, if they post their nationality on their User page (and a great many due), we have not violated privacy by ascertaining it Purplebackpack89 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it seems highly unwise. The privacy of contributors to Wikipedia is protected by policy, attempting to classify contributors to this discussion, challenging them about their nationality or to pressure them to declare where they live is against policy and may be treated as an attempt at outing. Fæ (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's only wise to consider the weight of regional input. If 50 British users say OPPOSE and 10 from Canada, 15 from the US, 2 from India, 1 from South Africa, 2 from China, 5 Europeans (other than Britain) and 3 British users SUPPORT, then obviously there is a localized bias that should be accounted for, despite that 50 to 38 count against the motion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I initially assumed a disambiguation page would be a sensible compromise, but having read through both pages, I think an historic city clearly outweighs an automobile brand. Maybe I am biased against automobiles, but there simply isn't very much to say about them, when compared to a city. The disambiguation page is also informative - there are many other places and things named after the city in Devon, England. To my mind, this gives the city primacy. GyroMagician (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. It's important to note that we're not merely comparing the city to the automobile brand; there are other topics covered by the name "Plymouth" that all seem to be of comparable importance, so they should be considered collectively. (It's like the difference between a majority and a plurality; if we did nothing but count uses to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, an article would need a majority of uses, not merely a plurality, to be considered the primary topic.) Powers T 15:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Does that make a page like the redirect for Elvis against policy as Elvis (disambiguation) has more than 50 alternative articles and so in plurality must outweigh even Elvis Presley? Fæ (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- See my case for Lincoln above, or, like me, be told WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Floydian, I am having difficulty seeing a comment of mine that you have not been the first to reply to. You may want to give others a chance to enjoy correcting me. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nice try, but no, I don't think those other 50 articles collectively outweigh The King. Powers T 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- See my case for Lincoln above, or, like me, be told WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Does that make a page like the redirect for Elvis against policy as Elvis (disambiguation) has more than 50 alternative articles and so in plurality must outweigh even Elvis Presley? Fæ (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd to again call attention to Royal's comment that the opposes are, to a man, from the UK, an area that constitutes a mere 1% of the world's population. The supports are from the other 99% of the world Purplebackpack89 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- The other 99% of the world? Why is the UK excluded from the rest of the world? Stevebritgimp (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Worldwide Point of View > British Point of View. WP:NPOV - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's somewhat degradig to the poor folk of Britain, but anyway the following users have opposed the move and have not stated that they live in the UK: Andrewa, Amakuru, Fæ and Ilikeeatingwaffles; 36% of opposers. Jolly Ω Janner 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- First let's assume good faith. Secondly greater than does not mean 99:1. UK pov is part of worldwide pov. Also having read WP:NPOV I can't see any reference to location of users. Is that on a sub-page? Also I'm not sure about the applicability of WP:NPOV on this issue. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The theory is that users from the UK are bias towards Plymouth being a primary topic, users from the US being bias towards Plymouth Colony and car fanatics having bias towards the car brand. When reviewing the discussion a closing admin should take into account these "biases" to decide the course of action. How on Earth an admin makes such a complex decision is beyond me... glad I'm not an admin is all I can say! Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed! Seeing as we're bringing in the rest of the world's population here, I was just checking out how many wikipedias each of the four big pages were in. The city gets nearly sixty, while the other pages don't manage half that. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another intesting thing to analyse may be the Special:WhatLinksHere/Plymouth. I get Plymouth at about 3700-3800 links (0.1% of all Wikipedia's articles), although I haven't counted the other Plymouth-related pages yet. Jolly Ω Janner 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've done analysis of the incoming links above.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another intesting thing to analyse may be the Special:WhatLinksHere/Plymouth. I get Plymouth at about 3700-3800 links (0.1% of all Wikipedia's articles), although I haven't counted the other Plymouth-related pages yet. Jolly Ω Janner 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed! Seeing as we're bringing in the rest of the world's population here, I was just checking out how many wikipedias each of the four big pages were in. The city gets nearly sixty, while the other pages don't manage half that. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The theory is that users from the UK are bias towards Plymouth being a primary topic, users from the US being bias towards Plymouth Colony and car fanatics having bias towards the car brand. When reviewing the discussion a closing admin should take into account these "biases" to decide the course of action. How on Earth an admin makes such a complex decision is beyond me... glad I'm not an admin is all I can say! Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- First let's assume good faith. Secondly greater than does not mean 99:1. UK pov is part of worldwide pov. Also having read WP:NPOV I can't see any reference to location of users. Is that on a sub-page? Also I'm not sure about the applicability of WP:NPOV on this issue. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's somewhat degradig to the poor folk of Britain, but anyway the following users have opposed the move and have not stated that they live in the UK: Andrewa, Amakuru, Fæ and Ilikeeatingwaffles; 36% of opposers. Jolly Ω Janner 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Worldwide Point of View > British Point of View. WP:NPOV - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your figure is spurious and based on speculation about other editors that breaches WP:OUTING. Fæ (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- So North Americans arn't being bias here? Some how the oldest and biggest Plymouth in the world isn't more important compared to a defunct car making company or other Plymouth's which are in North America and doesn't have half of this Plymouth's population? And your the ones NOT being bias?Likelife (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not make assumptions about the nationalities of contributors to this discussion. Your comment is an WP:ADHOM argument and unwelcome. Fæ (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- So North Americans arn't being bias here? Some how the oldest and biggest Plymouth in the world isn't more important compared to a defunct car making company or other Plymouth's which are in North America and doesn't have half of this Plymouth's population? And your the ones NOT being bias?Likelife (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The other 99% of the world? Why is the UK excluded from the rest of the world? Stevebritgimp (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - There are multiple meanings of Plymouth besides the British city, such as Plymouth, Massachusetts, Plymouth, Montserrat, and Plymouth (automobile). Other British cities that are also common names for other places such as Dover that need to be moved to less ambiguous titles. Dough4872 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I have started a discussion concerning Dover, see Talk:Dover#Requested move. Dough4872 01:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Plymouth is an American car company, not a Canadian one, but it has higher visibility in Canada than the other values of Plymouth. So it is not just known in Canada, it is also known in the US and Mexico. It is very widely known in North America, as exemplified by detective fiction that identifies makes of cars, with Plymouths appearing in them, and the high visibility of cars such as the Plymouth Prowler, Plymouth Voyager, Plymouth Reliant, Plymouth muscle cars. And "economy division" does not mean low visibility, as the Chevrolet division can attest to, as it is a still existing division. The arguments for Keeping Plymouth where it is, seem to take only the UK into account, ignoring what is primary in North America. If there are different primary topics in different places, you cannot say that the UK one is the sole primary usage. Obviously there should be a dismabiguation page at the primary location. The US and Canada is not a small portion of the English speaking world, nor is it a small amount of area of the entire world. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Detective fiction? Are there any Italian Oratorios with them in? Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - this is primary topic for the title Plymouth. No reason to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - all other meanings are derived from or named after the city. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a reason according to WP:PRIMARY DC T•C 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think putting a DAB page in place is a bad idea, and is very reader unfriendly. The Devonian town is by far the most widely known usage of the term. I use wide because the american view is not a WP:WORLDVIEW
- Nor is the British view. DC T•C 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fmph didn't say that it was only a British view. It is possible that the world view is the same as the British view. Jolly Ω Janner 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- But there's no proof of that. DC T•C 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you look, for example, at the German and Japanese pages for Plymouth and Plymouth, Massachusetts and do a what links here you will see that there are more references to the original English town.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- But there's no proof of that. DC T•C 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fmph didn't say that it was only a British view. It is possible that the world view is the same as the British view. Jolly Ω Janner 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Worldwide view? 60 language versions of WP have articles on the English city, compared with 18 for the car, and 23 for the place in MA. All except 7 (Ido, Lithuanian, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Slovak and Ukrainian) have the English city as the primary topic (or 9 if you count French and Breton, where the articles are entitled Plymouth (Angleterre) and Plymouth (Bro-Saoz), but the city is listed "en premier lieu" on the dab page). Only 1 (Russian) has the car in Roman script as the primary topic - Plymouth, but that is a special case because the article on the city has a Cyrillic title. No WP has the place in MA as the primary topic. --Mhockey (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for all and any of the oppose comments above. I am further suggesting, due to evidence and comments elsewhere, that this sudden proposal that concerns several major UK cities among which are featured articles, has been made for reasons that do not concern the neutrality of our encyclopdia. --Kudpung (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment : This discussion is premature due an ongoing policy discussion on policy that has not yet been resolved. --Kudpung (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Change of heart - Oppose - The number of incoming links are incontrovertible (and I spent nearly three hours redirecting links really aiming at Plymouth (automobile), hoping such was not the case!), as are the number of pages on other projects which have Plymouth, Devon as their primary for "Plymouth". As much as cars matter to me, and they do, in this case the status quo is fine. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to strike out (
example) your weak support, approximately a third of the way down this section, so as not to cause confusion on your stance. Jolly Ω Janner 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to strike out (
- Oppose per Mr.choppers et al., and Mhockey's comment @ 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC); the number of incoming links shores up the usage statistics and demonstrates which is the more broadly notable usage. Additionally a move would seem to disrupt rather than benefit. pablo 09:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment If we rename all the proposed (Plymouth, Cambridge, Sydenham, Dover, Peterborough, York and Cornwall) then its only right to rename all of the places listed here: List of locations in the United States with an English name which would just be unneeded and silly. Likelife (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Most, if not all, of those pages are already named "City, State", so isn't this a moot argument? --Vossanova o< 18:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think he meant rename the English places, which all of them originate from. Jolly Ω Janner 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose this and all the other nonsense (IMHO) renames which have cropped up from the same user. In all cases the UK town/city pre-dates all the other uses which are typically small (and invariably attractive places in other parts of the world e.g. Manchester, Massachusetts. Cambridge, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Manchester, Gloucester, Essex - all these were first and foremost British locations and that is still their primary use around the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a disambiguation hatnote in an article. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. If I was closing this discussion today, I would close it in favor of a move for the following reasons:
- The underlying issue here is whether the city in Devon is the primary topic for Plymouth.
- This determination should not be made by counting the Support and Oppose votes; this determination should be made by evaluating the quality of the arguments made, with particular attention to how much is based on policy, guidelines and conventions, and considering the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
- The "historical significance" of a subject is not directly relevant to primary topic determination. All Oppose arguments based on the assertion that "historical significance" matters here need to be discounted accordingly (if that is their sole basis they should be ignored entirely).
- Simply asserting that the topic is or is not the primary topic is not an argument; any such baseless assertions of opinion need to be discounted or even completely ignored accordingly.
- Counting incoming links is not nearly as strong an indicator of primary topic as is actual page hit counts (because of the criteria discussed in #9 below).
- Repeated and extended discussions and debates about whether this topic is the primary topic is strong indication in and of itself that no topic is primary for the term in question (in this case, Plymouth).
- Myriads of 10 year old kids doing reports on Thanksgiving by googling for Plymouth are not served well be being taken, confusingly, to a Wikipedia article about a city in England rather than to a dab page. The hatnote is easily missed by young and inexperienced eyes.
- Many who oppose this move are obviously geographically biased. To their credit, at least one admitted that the city in Devon is the primary topic for Plymouth only in the U.K. (and not in the U.S., Canada, Australia, South Africa or the rest of the English speaking world).
- The primary topic criteria is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". No one has argued (remember, assertions are not arguments), much less shown, that either criterion is true in this case. No data suggests that the city in Devon is "much more likely than any other [use of Plymouth]" to be the subject sought by a reader entering the term in Search, or that it is "more likely than all the others combined" to be the one being sought. Both have to be true for a topic to be primary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Myriads of 10 year old kids doing reports on Thanksgiving": no hint of geographical bias there then. No question of "historical signifcance" being relevant either. I see that the term used in the WP article on Thanksgiving is Plymouth Plantation, not Plymouth. If I search for "thanksgiving plymouth" in google.com (not google.co.uk), 2 of the hits on the first page are actually for the city in England.--Mhockey (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's google adding geographical bias to searches done at google.com - I don't get any hits for the city in England when I click on your first page link
Yes, the point about kids searching for Plymouth on Thanksgiving had nothing to do with primary topic; it was just a point in favor of the move for the purpose of benefiting readers, per WP:IAR if nothing else. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I exclude everyone who disagrees with me, everyone agrees with me? GyroMagician (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, which is what often occurs in WP:RM discussions to those who are on the side consistent with policy, guidelines and conventions. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I exclude everyone who disagrees with me, everyone agrees with me? GyroMagician (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's google adding geographical bias to searches done at google.com - I don't get any hits for the city in England when I click on your first page link
- "Repeated and extended discussions and debates about whether this topic is the primary topic is strong indication in and of itself that no topic is primary for the term in question" is a rather flawed concept. Higher viewed topics such as Plymouth and Plymouth in the US gather a lot of interest from users and wikipedians a-like and that is why it often gets move requested, especially around this time of year as well. You could argue that the fact that every attempt has been unsuccessful as support that Plymouth, Devon is the primary topic. Jolly Ω Janner 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- You make my point, Jolly. You concede that "topics such as Plymouth and Plymouth in the US" are "higher viewed" - these topics associated with "Plymouth" being "higher viewed" makes the city of Devon not be "much more likely than any other [use of Plymouth]" to be the desired topic when someone enters "Plymouth" in the Search box, which indicates the city of Devon is not the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't specify a ratio between them when I said that they were both highly viewed. You are taking my words out of context. Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is if there is more than one use of a given term that is "highly viewed", then neither use is "much more likely than [the] other" to be the desired target of a Search for the name in question, and thus not a primary topic, by definition. Consider primary topics like Paris, BMW, and Dolphin. These are examples of primary topics that have associated "(disambiguation)" dab pages, but none of the other uses are "highly viewed". In other words, if you can find a dab page with more than one topic that is "highly viewed", then that dab page should probably be at its plain name rather than at the "(disambiguation)" name.
That is, the reason Plymouth (disambiguation) should be moved to Plymouth is ultimately because more than one use of "Plymouth" is, as you've noted, "highly viewed". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, the city of Plymouth is more highly viewed than others and has far more links to it, indicating that it is the primary topic. Also, when I was refering to "Plmouth in the US", I didn't mean just one term. I meant the car brand and the town in Massachusetes, both of which combined have less page views than the city. Jolly Ω Janner 23:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is if there is more than one use of a given term that is "highly viewed", then neither use is "much more likely than [the] other" to be the desired target of a Search for the name in question, and thus not a primary topic, by definition. Consider primary topics like Paris, BMW, and Dolphin. These are examples of primary topics that have associated "(disambiguation)" dab pages, but none of the other uses are "highly viewed". In other words, if you can find a dab page with more than one topic that is "highly viewed", then that dab page should probably be at its plain name rather than at the "(disambiguation)" name.
- I didn't specify a ratio between them when I said that they were both highly viewed. You are taking my words out of context. Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- You make my point, Jolly. You concede that "topics such as Plymouth and Plymouth in the US" are "higher viewed" - these topics associated with "Plymouth" being "higher viewed" makes the city of Devon not be "much more likely than any other [use of Plymouth]" to be the desired topic when someone enters "Plymouth" in the Search box, which indicates the city of Devon is not the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Plymouth: 49,896 page views in September (of which some of these views would have been intended for other uses of the term "Plymouth")
- Plymouth, Massachusetts: 21,330 page views in September
- Plymouth, Colony: 64,603 page views in September
- Plymouth (automobile): 18,463 page views in September
- Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth Colony are the same place, and the combined number of page views for these articles in September was 85,933. The car brand also receives a sizeable number of page views, so I don't see any one Plymouth to be significantly more important than the other. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- But isn't that why there are two other tools listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to help (although not soley) in deciding if there is a primary topic? So if we look at the incoming links, the current Plymouth has a clear majority would be the primary topic under this criterea (as stated previously). Although this does not take into account wrongly piped links, I would not assume more than 50% is wrong and besides Mr.choppers has gone through a lot of links, corrected them and now also believes that Plymouth, Devon is the primary topic. As for the search engine tool, I think there is a general consensus that as it returns regionalised results it cannot apply here in a geographically based discussion. Zangar (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I already said, Plymouth Colony is not refered to as "Plymouth" per its own Wikipedia article, so I don't see why we would need to disambiguate that. Secondly, this time of year is very biased due to Thanksgiving. Try it in February and it'll tell a very different story. Jolly Ω Janner 01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Jolly, many topics have multiple names. Whether "Plymouth Colony" is the most common name or the preferred disambiguated name for the place does not at all preclude "Plymouth" from also being its name, perhaps even its more common name (just not available as article title due to conflict with other uses). You can't ignore its use of the name because people looking for it are likely to type in just "Plymouth" in the Search box. That's why it's an entry on the Plymouth dab page.
As to multiple tools, primary topic should be established by all relevant tools, unless there is good reason to discount or ignore the results in the case in question. In this case there is no reason to ignore page hit statistics, and page hit statistics do not clearly indicate a primary topic. We can ignore google due to regional bias and difficulties separating results from the various uses. That leaves link counts which indicates the city in Devon, but does not trump page view hit statistics, which is a much better indicator of primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot use page views in determining how many people searching "Plymouth" wanted to get Plymouth Colony as I'm sure many people would use "Plymouth Colony", not to mention a lot of people get there via wikilinks or Google search which may give it as an option for localised reasons and possibly time of year too. Jolly Ω Janner 01:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Jolly, many topics have multiple names. Whether "Plymouth Colony" is the most common name or the preferred disambiguated name for the place does not at all preclude "Plymouth" from also being its name, perhaps even its more common name (just not available as article title due to conflict with other uses). You can't ignore its use of the name because people looking for it are likely to type in just "Plymouth" in the Search box. That's why it's an entry on the Plymouth dab page.
I would also agree with Jolly that Plymouth Colony should not be included in the stats as it resides at its own unique page. If it was being forced to disambiguate past one of its established names then it would be located at Plymouth (colony). It's the same reason why the article on Los Ángeles does not have to reside at Los Angeles, Chile as it has an accent and is therefore different from the others named Los Angeles (as noted at the village pump).
In terms of page hits/incoming links I would agree with Born2cycle that if one method indicated a slight majority that one article was the primary topic and the other method indicated that another article was primary then there's a clear case that nothing is actually the prime topic. But here page hits do not indicate a clear primary topic yet incoming links do. So I'd say this is the case where other methods other than purely page hits need to be looked at and not ignored. Nowhere does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC say that all tools are needed to establish a primary topic or that page hits trump anything else or vice versa, and if it did why bother include the other tools at all? Zangar (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since the U.K. city does not receive significantly more views (i.e. 70–80 percent of readership), then how can you argue it as the primary topic from a global perspective? If this is the English Wikipedia, and the four top English-speaking countries are (in order of number of native speakers): the United States (214,809,000), United Kingdom (58,200,000), Canada (18,232,195), and Australia (15,581,334); how does the U.K. represent a majority? As shown by the pie chart, the U.S. and Canada combined make up 75 percent of English native speakers in these four countries (where the colony/car brand would be more well known). Australia would sit somewhere in between the U.K./U.S. perspective (I am from Sydney and aware of all three Plymouths). "Other" refers to the remainder of countries as listed here.
- As has been said above, most Americans (and to a lesser extent Canadians) would not be very familiar with the U.K. city, so if these people make up such a large proportion of English speakers, how is the U.K. city the primary topic? The U.K. city is also well-known in Australia as Plymouth was the starting point of the first voyage of James Cook (during which he discovered the eastern half of Australia). However, the gradual Americanisation of Australia over the past 50–100 years has meant the U.S. colony has moderate familiarity as well (i.e. neither city is significantly more primary than the other).
- While I personally find the the U.K. city to be more important than the other uses (possibly biased due to the James Cook affiliation), I certainly don't consider it to be significantly more important than the U.S. city, which is the criteria of WP:Primary topic. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Plymouth (automobile), basing its popularity on the 18,463 page views in September is misleading. Just like articles on cities are split up into sub-articles like "Demographics of X", "History of X", and "Economy of X", the Plymouth (automobile) article is also slit into sub-articles as well:
- Plymouth Barracuda: 31,773
- Plymouth Neon: 14,271
- Plymouth Prowler: 13,657
- Plymouth Voyager: 7,904
- Plymouth GTX: 5,751
- Plymouth Laser: 4,281
- Plymouth Sundance: 2,394
- Plymouth Acclaim: 2,290
- Plymouth Caravelle: 1,505
This is only a selection of articles on individual Plymouth models; many are not included. So the so-called "obscure" car brand outranks all other Plymouths by a sizeable margin. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although isn't this more of an argument as to whether Plymouth Barracuda should reside at Plymouth (automobile)? Also can I suggest we look at stats totalled over a year rather than a month, to avoid accusations that the stats are time biased Zangar (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- We shouldn't call everything that has the name "Plymouth" in it into questioning. I'm sure that nobody searching for a specific car would type "Plymouth" instead of "Plymouth Barracuda"; most likely someone would type "Barracuda" instead surely? Jolly Ω Janner 02:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? We are trying to ascertain whether or not there is a primary topic, not which article has the most number of views. Obviously individual Plymouth models are part of the Plymouth (automobile) topic, just as Plymouth, MA and Plymouth Colony are part of the same topic. What the opposers are trying to argue is the the U.K. city is the primary usage of the term "Plymouth". That is far from the truth. The number of page views for Plymouth (automobile) and its individual models shows that the car marker is a very significant topic (and most viewed), and thus there is no primary topic. Likewise, Plymouth, MA and Plymouth Colony both receive more views that "Plymouth" so this shows that the U.S. city is also a significant topic. Thus, there is no primary topic. I don't know whether the opposers are just ignoring the facts, or just have not got over the fact that Britain is no longer the centre of the universe, and has not been for almost 100 years now. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- At the same time we can't ignore it. It's reasonable to assume that if individual models of a given make have significant numbers of hits, so would searches for just the name of the make. Consider:
- Toyota has been viewed 129195 times in 201009.
- Toyota_Corolla has been viewed 75124 times in 201009.
- Porsche has been viewed 98664 times in 201009.
- Porsche_911 has been viewed 99146 times in 201009.
- Volkswagen has been viewed 108392 times in 201009.
- Volkswagen_Golf has been viewed 95360 times in 201009
- Chevrolet has been viewed 79284 times in 201009.
- Chevrolet_Corvette has been viewed 101978 times in 201009
- This is not meant to be exhaustive, but I think it's revealing that only the extremely well known Corvette and 911 have more hits than their respective makes. For all other models I can think of, the make has more hits than the model. I have no reason to believe that Plymouth the make would be less popular than any of its models, and clearly the most likely term one would search for when looking for the make is "Plymouth".
- Plymouth has been viewed 49896 times in 201009.
- Plymouth_Barracuda has been viewed 31773 times in 201009.
- Even if we assume readers Searched for the make Plymouth only a very conservative half as many times as they viewed the page about the Plymouth Barracuda (15,850), that alone accounts for 30% of the page views at Plymouth. Even if all the other uses only took up (again, a very conservative) 20%, that means the city in Devon gets 50%, which hardly makes it "much more likely than any other [use of the term]" to be Searched. And this is all despite the fact that there so many internal links to the page. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is assuming a naive approach to searches, especially as Plymouth as in the car, the colony and the MA town are all clearly visible in the list if you search for "ply". All we know is the figures that went to each page and we cannot really speculate as to the readers intentions and how many got to this page in error. I would say that Plymouth (disambiguation) gets about 2k views a month, which is a probable indication that not that many arrive here looking for something other than the UK or MA settlements.
- Whoops, misread that point (you aren't saying traffic to this page is inflated). I would say traffic stats are not really supposed to be the decisive factor in anything, though they are important.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- At the same time we can't ignore it. It's reasonable to assume that if individual models of a given make have significant numbers of hits, so would searches for just the name of the make. Consider:
- In the same space we could also assume that after typing in "Plymouth" into the search box in the wiki that a user wanting the Barracuda would see Plymouth (automobile) as a search/page option and click that over the Plymouth option. Although I see this is not the point you are trying to make, born2cycle. But still, an assumption is still an assumption no matter how liberal or conservative the numbers are, and unless we are a social psychologist/scientist we cannot attempt to qualify/verify these assumptions. So can I suggest that we do what OSX says and stick to, not ignore (or theorise) the facts:
- I don't think anyone on the "oppose" side of the discussion has tried to ignore the page hits facts for a while now. Some discussion has occurred about what should be included and the time span used to quantify this (this is more addressing technicalities rather than trying to ignore them). I do feel that even if we were to ignore Plymouth Colony (please see my comments on this above) and look at this over a period of a year then Plymouth, Devon would still not come out with a majority as the primary topic according to this test alone. But then we have the second test of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and last one in this case) of the incoming links (which at the moment appears to be ignored by OSX and taken into account by born2cycle). This test states that there is a clear primary topic (under this test) which is also a fact.
- So I suppose the argument should now boil down to, and this is what a closing admin needs to think about: "Does the fact that one test of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not show a clear primary topic out-weigh the fact that the other test does show a clear primary topic?" This is what born2cycle and I have been discussing and is where we take opposite views on. I personally believe that where the dichotomy exists between Topic A and Topic B then an even split on the facts/tests should indicate that there is no primary topic; but in this case the dichotomy exists between Topic A and No topic, so I believe that here the case falls with Plymouth, Devon being the primary topic. Zangar (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)