Talk:Plymouth/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Plymouth → ~~Plymouth, England~~ Plymouth, Devon — There are more than thirty places named Plymouth or similar, and while the city in England is important, it is unlikely that most people looking for a place called Plymouth are looking for that one. Currently someone looking for one of the other Plymouths by typing "Plymouth" comes here, has to go to a disambiguation page, and only then get to the place he wants to go. The Plymouth page should instead be the same as the Westport page: fewer hops for the user. This proposed move is to help make navigation of place-name articles less confusing. — Evertype 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as above. Evertype 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Although the one in England is the original, I don't think it's major enough to be automatically recognised. Deb 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I don't care which of the suggested names is used for the rename. Vegaswikian 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - Wikipedia is a world-based website, not England based. Plymouth, Devon is not world famous like Boston. I consider myself to be knowledgeable in geography, and when I think of the word "Plymouth", Plymouth Rock and nearby Plymouth, Wisconsin come to my mind first. Plymouth in England doesn't even come to my mind. I barely remember hearing of the city. There's about a 1% chance that I would be searcing for the city in England. I guess that's my United States bias. The city may be historic, but I don't think its necessarily well-known to a world audience. Its beauty is irrelevant. My point is Plymouth needs to be a disambiguous link. --Royalbroil 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As has been discussed in the case of Newport News, Plymouth Rock is not the same as Plymouth because it's a different name. Just type in Plymouth Rock if you want that article, it links directly there. Seems like a very strong US bias to me. Are you suggesting that Plymouth, Wisconsin, a town of 8,000 people, is well-known to a World audience? I know my geography but I've never heard of this place, after all it's a very small town in a country of 300 million people. I don't think any Plymouth is known that widely across the World, but the one in Devon is the nearest I can think of. Marky-Son 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me be quite clear on this, you're supporting the proposal that this page be moved on the ground that Wikipedia is a world-based website, and should not reflect a UK bias... you're obviously blissfully unaware of the many many examples of US bias on Wikipedia (such as colour and flavour, which both redirect to the US spelling, despite the word only being officially spelled that way in one country) and moving this page, or any other pages about towns in the UK because there's an American town with the same name, panders to that, to my mind. Whether you've heard of Plymouth in England or not, it's still the most notable place bearing that name. No disambig is needed; people can click on 'for other uses see' link at the top if they need somewhere else. --Stevefarrell 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed about the Plymouth Rock reference. I agree there are US biases, and that they should be removed too. There is no way to make everyone happy with the color/colour debate, so I won't touch that one. I think a city needs to be MUCH more notable than all the others (such as Kiel, Germany vs. Kiel, Wisconsin), and a world-reknown city to earn the right to own the native page. I don't think that Plymouth is considered a world-reknown city like Kiel. I have written two articles about UK things (the DYK articles Henry Segrave and the Segrave Trophy), and I got to experience first-hand how biases EVERYONE is without realizing it, including myself. Very humbling. I think that Plymouth, Newport, and Chester are too UK-biased. I found about all three articles at the same source, and I feel the same about all three. I have no anti-UK sediments. Cheers! --Royalbroil 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just find it very odd how few Americans seem to have heard of the place where the Mayflower set sail from in order to found their country. I'm saying, the city has an important historical role in your country, so there's no bias at all in assuming this is the most important place with this name. --Stevefarrell 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Support due to Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile). I am not trying to be biased, but those two articles (especially the car company) are also important. And to say "historical cities of 500,ooo are significant in a way towns of 100,000 usually are not" is a bit disingenuous in this case; Devon's is listed at around 250,000 and Massachusetts's is listed at 50,000, while both are very important to the history of their respective countries. Dekimasu 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As at Newport, importance is not a linear function of population - historical cities of 500,ooo are significant in a way towns of 100,000 usually are not. Plymouth, Devon is one of the major cities of a major country - the other Plymouths aren't even the most important features of their own states. There could be another 12,000 or 120,000 hamlets and townships called Plymouth, but the article is still at the correct place. Aquilina 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose For the same reason as Aquilina. Population, history and importance are important factors. Dot dismabiguate for the sake of it. Apply common sense. Owain (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Plymouth, England would be pandering to regional nationalism and therefore is not reflecting a NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand quite what you mean about "pandering". Plymouth is in England, and not in Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. In any case, the proposal is that Plymouth per se should be the portal to all the many Plymouths, and I've already indicated below that the move for this article should be to Plymouth, Devon. Evertype 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My opposition is to the move detailed above: which is to move Plymouth (which has been in Great Britain since 1707) to Plymouth, England. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason for this proposal is to free Plymouth to be the disambiguation page, so people looking for any of the 30+ Plymouths can get there more directly. Evertype 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons outlined by Aquilina and Owain. -- Arwel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Plymouth is a highly significant place historically as well as being a beautiful large city. When most people type in Plymouth, they will be looking for the place in Devon so it should stay as it is. For more details, see my comments on Newport and Chester. Marky-Son 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as outlined by Aquilina and Owain. If you select Boston you go to Boston (Mass) not a disambiguation page. NoelWalley 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons already outlined above. -- Roleplayer 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose same nominator, same US-biased reasons. --Stevefarrell 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What's this about? I proposed this because I believed this and some other pages should be like the Westport page. I didn't do it for "US-biased" reasons. I don't live in the U.S. either. Evertype 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you say so. But your assertion in the original nomination on this and the Chester and Newport pages was that 'hardly anyone looking for (this place) would be looking for the one in the UK', which is a nonsense. Perth leads to a disambiguation page because there are two Perths that are very notable, the one in Scotland and the one in Australia. But, especially with Chester, none of the other places bearing that name come close to being as notable, and the same applies to Plymouth. It seems to me that you want it disambiguated because you believe that, if they're not more important, the places bearing these names in the United States are at least as important, for the simple reason they're in the United States. But they're not. If they were, I'd be supporting the proposal in a flash. --Stevefarrell 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, honestly. The assertion has ALWAYS been "there are 30 Newports/Chesters/Plymouths and it makes good sense to have these treated like Westport has been. In my view, the "notability" resides not in any particular place, but in the fact that there are so many bearing the same name. Look at Westport. I live near the one in Ireland, and yet the list is NPOV ordered simply alphabetically. No chauvinism. No U.S. bias. Just fair access for anyone interested in a "Westport" regardless of how "important" or "populous" it is. Evertype 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
But as I said elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge there is no one Westport that is more notable than the others. That isn't the case here or with Chester and Newport. Chester in England is the place people think of when they think of Chester. I'm happy to see there's no bias in your nomination, although there certainly is in peoples' reasons for supporting it, but I remain unconvinced that these three towns need a move to a disambiguation page. Newport, for example, already links straight to the next two most notable places bearing the name, and if we followed this convention throughout Wikipedia, thousands of pages - not just on place names - would be a disambiguation page instead of going straight to an article and then giving you the option of seeing more things with that same name. Personally I feel that would be unnecessary in the majority of cases. --Stevefarrell 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE There is no comparison here. Plymouth has a 1000+ year documented history, and without recourse to arguments about Americanocentrism, none of the US Plymouths have one iota of the significance in overall historical, geopolitical, and encyclopaedic terms. Similar arguments apply to e.g. York, London, Copenhagen, Paris, etc. Sjc 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Vehemently oppose Without going into the issues of Plymouth being the original Plymouth, are there actually any none-Americans who want to see this?? Plymouth is a city of immense historical significance (for Americans as well, see Mayflower) and is today a major centre of learning. Having studied at University of Plymouth and been a part of its International Students Society I can state that Plymouth is famous world-wide with its university considered a centre of excellence (again, worldwide) for maritime-related studies and even its business school. There is no other Plymouth in the world with the same significance. You can discover that right here on Wikipedia. Suriel1981 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Plymouth is larger, has more history and is more important in the UK than Plymouth is in Massachusetts or Plymouth the car company is in the US. Mageslayer99 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If the article is moved, it should be to Plymouth, Devon, with a redirect from Plymouth, England - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). Warofdreams talk 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to this. The idea is to free up Plymouth to be the portal to all thirty+ Plymouths, too many to be well-served by the current disambiguation page. Evertype 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plymouth should not redirect to this page

Plymouth, Massachusetts is just as famous, if not moreso, than this town. Plymouth should redirect to a disambiguation page. 71.234.216.249 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Plymouth (UK) is a city, not a town, unlike Plymouth (Massachusetts). And while I can't speak for the perspective of any other country, Plymouth (UK) is much more famous in the UK than is Plymouth (Massachusetts). Whitepaw 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A comparison between a city and a town is completely irrelevant in this case; Plymouth (Massachusetts) is an extremely important town in the United States just as Plymouth (UK) is a very important city in Britain. Most people in the US haven't even heard of Plymouth (UK), while most are familiar with Plymouth (Massachusetts), making it 'more famous' here. To declare that Plymouth (UK) is more important due to its long history, harbor, source of the name, etc. is just not true. Plymouth (Massachusetts) is just as important to the United States as Plymouth (UK) is to the United Kingdom. Neither Plymouth is more important, and therefore a disambiguation page is necessary. Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This Plymouth is the source of the name of all the other Plymouths around the world. Mind you, as there are two dozen different Plymouths in the States (and about 100 Plymouth pages in Wiki), perhaps there is some merit in the argument.Geof Sheppard 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A name source doen't necessarily make it a more important city. Both cities have served extremely roles in the developments of their countries. Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that much more notable than some of the other Plymouths. Plymouth should be a disambiguation page. Recury 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fun quiz question for you, 71.234.216.249. Name the English city that the Mayflower, the ship which the pilgrim fathers sailed on to settle in what is now the USA, set sail from? Was it called Plymouth, perhaps? Don't even tell me that Plymouth in Devon is 'less famous' than some random town named after it in America. The only reason you think that is because it's in America. --Stevefarrell 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) *applause* Scibah 09:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Random Town? You have got to be kidding me. The first/second permanent English settlement in the United States is not random at all. No one is saying the Plymouth in the UK 'less famous' world-wide. Still, throughout United States, the Plymouth (US) is extremely famous, without a doubt more famous than the city in Britain. As both cities are extremely important in different parts of the world, they can be seen as about 'on par', meaning a disambiguation page is needed. The only reason you think that is becuase it's in Britain. While Plymouth (UK) may be an very important city, even world-wide, it is not necessarily better than the important town in Massachusetts. Both should be listed prominently on a disambiguation page (Key words: Disambiguation Page). Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did the Mayflower land? Might that place also be important in history? It's Plymouth, Massachusetts. Personally I think the Plymouth in England is more important, but that doesn't mean this shouldn't go to a disambiguation page. Dekimasu 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, of course. I favour a soft disambiguation, where Plymouth continues to redirect to the English one, but at the top it says something like "This article is about Plymouth in Devon. For the town in Massachusetts, see Plymouth, Massachusetts", and then the disambiguation page linked after it. It works on loads of other pages I've seen. --Stevefarrell 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Plymouth, Mass. should be mentioned on a title page when one searches simply for "Plymouth." In the popular mind of the US, "Plymouth" is where the Mayflower landed, where the Puritan's Plantation was, where the first Thanksgiving took place, and where tourists visit Plymouth Rock. As Americans, we learn about Plymouth, Mass. from the very start of school at age 4 or 5. In other words, it's VERY famous--certainly not "some random place." This is not to say that the British Plymouth is not important, or even equally important; however, Plymouth, Mass. should certainly be mentioned, at the very least. LuMas 23:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Plymouth, Mass. might be important to citizens of the United States but I fail to see the relevance to the rest of the world. Simply compare the articles, that tells the story. Wikipedia caters to an international audience, not just an American one. Is anyone willing to explain why they think Plymouth Mass. or the American Plymouth car company would be more famous world-wide than Plymouth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suriel1981 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, of course Wikipedia caters to an international audience. However, America is a huge part of that audience. As such, America's 'hometown' should be listed prominently on a disambiguation page. Both Plymouth (UK) and Plymouth (US) should be listed at the top of the page, allowing easy redirect access for each. Since Wikipedia does cater to an international audeience, a disambiguation page that links to Plymouth (UK) would satisfy British users, a link to Plymouth (US) would satisfy American users, and other users can choose whatever Plymouth they are seraching for. Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that Plymouth should be a redirect. There are so many places (as well as companies, etc.) named Plymouth that there is absolutely no reason that this page should redirect here. It goes against all Wikipedia naming conventions. And I don't feel this way because I'm American... I'm Canadian. Sven Erixon 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very irritating that Plymouth, a very common name, comes to an article instead of a disambiguation. It doesn't matter whether Plymouth in Devon is "more important" than the other Plymouths. What matters is that there is more of them. I'm willing to bet that more than 3/4 of the people who come to this page immediately click the link at the top to the disambiguation.

Why isn't the above comment signed? Really! Three-fourths(!) of the people would want a redirect - I don't think so. If you want to look at cars or small towns scattered around the world then maybe you should expect to type more than 'Plymouth' if you want to find them. Anyway, don't want to troll. Stevebritgimp 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, maybe it is more like Four-Fifths. Samll towns scattered around the world? Come on. The primary focus in this discussion has been the prominent American Plymouth versus the prominent British Plymouth. Any American who types in Plymouth would likely expect to find the Massachusetts Plymouth, the home of the Plymouth Rock, the home of America's first Thanksgiving, the home of the country's first museum, and the site of one of teh nation's first European settlements. It is no random town, and is not less important than the British Plymouth. Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand on that comment - I personally feel that you should get an important article for your word, and if that's not what you want then it's no big deal looking for the exact thing you wanted. When London, Birmingham, Boston and Charlotte become disambiguations then Plymouth can be. I have no problem getting Charlotte North Carolina when I type Charlotte, as it's a place I've heard of, and am glad to learn something new about it.172.209.84.63 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but London, Birmingham, and Boston are far more significant cities than Plymouth, UK, and they do not have cities of nearly equal historical significance in other countries that share a name. No small town called 'London' in the United States could ever come close to matching the cultural importantce of London, UK, and the same goes for Boston and Birmingham. Plymouth, UK is a much smaller city than London, Boston, and Birmingham, and Plymouth, Mass. has historical significance that rivals, if not surpasses, that of Plymouth, UK. As there is not a clear city of more significance between the two, a disambiguation page is needed in this case. Raime 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose any change. Without going into the issues of Plymouth being the original Plymouth, are there actually any none-Americans who want to see this?? Plymouth is a city of immense historical significance (for Americans as well, see Mayflower) and is today a major centre of learning. Having studied at University of Plymouth and been a part of its International Students Society I can state that Plymouth is famous world-wide with its university considered a centre of excellence (again, worldwide) for maritime-related studies and even its business school. There is no other Plymouth in the world with the same significance. You can discover that right here on Wikipedia. Suriel1981 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because Plymouth, UK is the original Plymouth, this does not make it automatically the most important one. As for the non-American comment, see a post above written by a person from Canada. While Plymouth, UK is a great city and a centre of learning, Plymouth, Mass. is America's first permanent British settlement, the location of the First Thanksgiving, the site of several landmarks, including Plymouth Rock and the National Monument to the Forefathers, and the site of several historical events. The town is extremely important in United States history, far more important for the Uniteed States than Plymouth, UK. Plymouth does have the same, if not more, significance than Plymouth, (UK), and therefore a disambiguation page is needed. As for the other pLymouths, since there are over 30, a disambiguation page seems to make even more sense simply due to the large number. Raime 16:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently Support a change to a disambiguation page where both Plymouth, US and Plymouth, UK are listed prominently. For the non-American jeer, see an above post listed by a user from Canada. Plymouth, Massacusetts is an extremely important city for North Americans, far more important than the Plymouth in the UK. I am not trying to say that the British Plymouth is not a famous city; it is a great city, but not so much more important than the American Plymouth that 'Plymouth; should redirect there.However, Plymouth, Mass. is of utmost importance to Americans (who make up a lrage portion of Wikipedia users), and a disambiguation page is needed. Both Plymouths deserved to be listed prominently. Raime 04:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Plymouth, Mass is so named after Plymouth, and its undoubted importance to Americans don't change that. Most Americans surely know whence the Mayflower sailed? DuncanHill 10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because Plymouth, Mass. was named after the Plymouth in the UK, that doesn't make it better. Boston, Mass. was named after Boston, Lincolnshire, but you'll find a hard time convincing anyone that the Boston in the UK is more important than Boston, Mass. Most Americans would undoubtedly feel that the place where the Mayflower actually landed and established America's first/second English town is far more important to the United States than the city from which the ship failed. PLymouth, UK is important to the United States in some ways, but it could never be as important or historically significant to Americans as Plymouth, Mass. Raime 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that one Plymouth is better or worse than another. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and this is the English language wikipedia. I would suspect that in Commonwealth countries (where English is either the mother tongue or the most widespread second language) the Plymouth in England is the one that would most readily spring to mind - especially considering the naval history of the city and the navy's contribution to the development of the Empire. DuncanHill 11:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But as Wikipedia does cater to an international audience, it must also cater to the United States. The US is the largest primarily-English speaking country in the world by population (India's primary language is not English), and since most Americans would want Plymouth, Mass. when they type in Plymouth, a disambiguation page is necessary. Anyone who is searching for Plymouth, UK would have no problem easily redirecting at a disambiguation page, just as Americans would do. I am not suggesting that Plymouth, Mass. become the rerdirect article, but rather that a disambiguation page would allow easier access to both extremely important Plymouths that are liklely about equally searched for. Raime 11:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, UK is undoubtedly a great city, but so is Plymouth, Mass. I think that Plymouth, Mass. has had just as much, if not more, a comtribution to the development of the American civilization as Plymouth, UK has had on the development of the British Empire. I suspect that throughout North America (including Canada, a Commonwealth nation), Plymouth, Mass. would most readily come to mind, given the town's huge infliuence on the development of the United States. If Plymouth, UK is really is no better than Plymouth Mass., and both cities are extremely important to their respective countries/regions, then why should a disambiguation page that would allow easy access to both great cities, without putting one above the other, not be used? It an easy win for both sides, and contrary to popular opinion, will not degrade Plymouth, UK. Raime 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to American civilisation, vs British Empire, is POV. These things should decided on their merits (but of course me weighing in on this side is also POV). Also like I said Charlotte is not redirect and that's a person's name. Also agree with the point that no one is bothered about Boston or London not being redirects, regardless of nationality, they're safe bets. Consensus is not majority or 'plurality', but a workable way of keeping as many people as happy as is practical. This is en. wikipedia, not us. wikipedia. Stevebritgimp 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(also ironically because it isn't a disambiguation I often end up surfing into New England and doing minor edits in their articles(!)) :)Stevebritgimp 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you put it that way, contribution to British Empire vs. American Civilization is POV. You honestly think that contribution to the American Civilization, neigh, the founding city of the American civilization, which eventually replaced the British Empire as the dominant force in the world, is unimportant!? Charlotte does not need to be a redirect, normally people's names are not as important as cities. Furthermore, typing in "Charlotte" (and expecting to find an article about a specific person) is almost as vague as typing in "Charles" or "William". And for Boston and London, you have got to be kidding me! Plymouth, UK has not come close to the level of prominenece or importance these two glocal cities have. Plymouth, UK is more along the lines of Worcester, UK, a smaller city that aren't more prominent than an American town/city with the same name. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of a talk page to express your POV? While this is en. wikipedia, this is not the British Wikipedia, so it needs to go in line with both the United States and Britain equally. Anyways, Plymouth, UK is NOT a global city and has not played any more inportant a role in the development of its country than Plymouth, MA has done for the USA.Raime 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My mention of Empire in POV is one of the assumption that British history consists of Empire, which is an anachronistic view, and rather irritating. Britain is a country, not an Empire. Anyway, I've read the Plymouth Colony article, and it's contribution was significantly less than Massachussetts Bay Colony. My point was that global cities, as well as the 23rd largest ciy in the US, get their own non-disambiguation pages, but Plymouth seems to have to argue its case. Worcester is in fact NOT a disambiguation. You can express your POV as much as you like. Also Britain and America should not be treated equally - they are just two of many, and not shorthand for single views anyway. I would actually disagree with your last point, but I think the two Plymouths are opposite sides of a coin, in that one has an important place in US national mythology, while the other is almost entirely ignored in its national life. But now I'm rambling. I will speak no more of this. Stevebritgimp 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Britain is an Empire; I definitely concur that it is a country. But, at one time, it was an empire; that is all I was saying. And I'm also not saing that Plymouth Colony contributed more than the colony that eventually grew into Boston, one of the United States' most important cities. Whether you like it or not, Boston IS a global city, and Plymouth (UK) IS NOT. Plymouth, UK cannot come close to the historical and cultural significance that Boston has had in its much shorter history. And I know that Worcester is not a disambiguation page, and never said likewise; I was only stating that Plymouth and Worcester are in similar categories and should both be disambiguation pages. And I am NOT saying that the English Wikipedia should only focus on British and American views. Rather, it needs to take into account important cities/towns of all countries, and not single out one city as being more important than another of similar historical value simply because of namesake reasons. Whether you like it or not, Plymouth, Massachusetts has been extremely important to the American civilization, so much so that there is now have a National Holiday that celebrates the importance of Plymouth, MA and its inhabitants in the country's development. Last time I checked, Massachusetts Bay Colony does not have a similar National holiday. Raime 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose changing. Plymouth, Uk is by far the most important in every category. A link to the lesser Plymouth, Mass at the top wouldn't go amiss though. 77.99.8.53 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, UK is certainly not the most important in every category. Due to Plymouth, Massachusetts' historical value to the United States, and it being well-known throughout North America, it is equally important. Plymouth, Devon is important to the British civilization. Plymouth, Mass. is equally imortant to the American civilization. Neither city is extremely important outside of its respective country. That is why a dab page is needed. Due to the extreme opposition to moving this page, however, perhaps a dab link to Plymouth, Mass. (rather than a dab page) is the best way to go. Raime 20:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that queries for PLYMOUTH redirect here and not to a DISAMBIGUATION page... The automaker, "rock," and Massachusetts town are at least as famous as this Plymouth... Your HUBRIS is confusing people who search for PLYMOUTH. Please change this and make queries for plymouth redirect to a disambig page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.217.27 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As an American, I find this discussion bizarre. Every American I know, and probably 80% of the country, learns about Plymouth, Mass., when they are 3 or 4 years old. It is a deeply important part of the American national mythos. It seems like the UKers in this discussion are arguing that Plymouth, Mass is less notable because it is a small town, whereas Plymouth, Devon is a city. But this isn't the point of the argument. Plymouth, Mass, is as notable as Plymouth, Devon because it is a incredibly important part of American history that everyone in the country knows about. It has nothing to do with the size of the town. mkehrt (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

General discussion about the article

The Plymouth citadel does not have more cannons facing towards the city than out to the sea, it's just the ones facing the city are the only ones that remain, as the ones facing out to sea were down closer to the shoreline, less visible, and later removed.

Is there any evidence to suggest that Takoradi-Sekondi in Ghana is a twin city of Plymouth? The list of cities of the official city council webstie doesn't list it: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/twin_towns-2

Links for a to do list of things to add:

NASA photo of Plymouth, Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor

This page is rapidly becoming absurdly hagiographic! Can't someone find some crime statistics or unemployment statistics or something? Monk Bretton 01:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see some pages in my watchlist merged into this one in their entirity... Given how long the page has become, I'm not sure this is really a good thing - I prefer to see ten focused, interlinked pages than one single page about ten different things. What do other people think? Whitepaw 23:40, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I agree that ten small, focused pages are better than one long one. Not that this is a 'bad page' as such. --Monk Bretton 23:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed some references (in the captions of photos) that said 'the Plymouth Hoe'. It is called either 'the Hoe' or 'Plymouth Hoe' but never (in my experience) 'The Plymouth Hoe' (which is rather curious, when you think about it). At any rate the text of the article talks about Plymouth Hoe (no 'the') so it is best to have the text and captions matching. Cheers --Monk Bretton 23:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have recreated the pages for Devonport Dockyard, The Barbican, the Citadel and the University of Plymouth and moved all relevant material from the Plymouth page into each respective one. I have also removed the Eddystone lighthouse information from the History section as there is already a separate page for it. Plymouthguy 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article was all over the place and embarassingly parochial in its tone[in Plymouth? - oo'd've thought it?]. I've tried to take on board the (interminable) discussion above of which Plymouth is the more important [obviously this one IMHO;)] and added a section on the Pilgrim Fathers in the spirit of transatlantic brotherliness. i've also tidied up the history, and added headings, references and even changed the title pic to do the place justice - the old one was overcast and miserable!. hope you agree its better Trysca (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The French attacked Plymouth

It might be worth mentioning this bit of history:

Plymouth played a role in the many wars between England and France in the Middle Ages. Because of this Plymouth attacked by French soldiers several times. The worst attack came one day in August 1403. The French sailed across the Channel and landed north of the town. The French marched into Plymouth and occupied the area around Exeter Street. The English fought back but were unable to dislodge the French, who stayed overnight.

The next day the French sailed away but only after burning much of the town. (This was easily done as most of the buildings were of wood with thatched roofs). Afterwards part of the town was called Breton Side. After this disaster Plymouth was soon rebuilt and began to flourish once more.

BUT

don't use those words - I copied them from this website: - http://www.localhistories.org/plymouth.htmlOgg

A very interesting piece of history, unfortunately, it is not very significant to Plymouth and only ever gets a tiny mention in local history books. The vast majority of people in Plymouth have no idea it ever happened. I will however mention it but in no detail. Plymouthguy 16:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

plymouth cathedral

plymouth has a cathedral, you wouldnt know it from this article. by my reckoning its got the 16th tallest church spire in the country on it.

It has, but as a Roman Catholic cathedral it's more just a largish church than one of the great Church of England cathedrals, and it's not exactly central. Nice church though. -- Necrothesp 14:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not when their ruddy bells wake you up on a Sunday morning /sigh Sjc 09:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reference to churches - congregations I mean, though buildings are scarely mentioned. Is there a template for this?

Janner Reference

"Plymouth contains a rather dangerous sub-breed of humanity known as the 'Janner'. Please see the relevant Wikipedia page for important information concerning the nature of this sub-moronic underclass, and also ways planned of dealing with the menace to culture that they pose purely by virtue of their existence"

Removed this as it is actually rather offensive to myself and other Plymothians.

I have just reverted this edit from the introduction: "SEE THE JANNER TEXTBOOK - A GUIDE TO JANNERS, WRITTEN BY MIKE WHIDDON 2002" If it is a real and useful book then someone might want to add it properly to the article references. Geof Sheppard 07:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nineteenth Century

Did nothing much happen in Plymouth in the 19th C except a tornado? What about the Athenaeum? http://www.plymouthathenaeum.co.uk/ isn't it worthy of more than a quick reference to "the Athenaeum Theatre"?

Vernon White 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be a section on (architect & city planner) Sir John Foulston [1] and Union Street which were highly important works of public architecture of their period - unfortunately very little survived WWII and Abercrombie's plan, so it's now hard to bring together. Trysca (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I think it's time there was a Wikiproject:Devon up and running. Anyone interested, come to my talkpage and we'll sort something out. I'm not much good at HTML but if we all put our heads together I'm sure we can get Devon articles shipshape! Totnesmartin 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The site for the proposing such projects is:[2]. Cheers! Totnesmartin 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Devoport - GUZZ not true?

The belief that Devonport is known as "GUZZ" because it was a radio callsign is, I think, an urban myth.

Take a look at this page [3]

I have asked for a citation and I'll wait a week or two before correcting this.Paulbrian 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that site it may be that the GZX (Mount Wise and therefore controlling access to the Hamoaze and all routes in and out of the naval base) callsign might be the originator - but the idea that it was GUZZ has stuck in people's minds as the term has gained currency outside of the navy, and lay people like me would assume radio callsigns have 4 letters. Unless some other positive source can be had (I doubt it for a piece of slang like this) the call-sign origin has to be toned-down or removed. Problem is as an urban myth it's a pretty strong one, and it's likely to reappear in the future. Guzz or Guz is worth mentioning - but how? Can the site you gave be cited as a source? Stevebritgimp 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the callsign comment as Paul hasn't. I stand by my earlier comments above on the origin. Stevebritgimp 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the word "guzz" so important as to appear in the introduction to the Plymouth article? Shouldn't it be moved to Devonport or, better still, HMNB Devonport? Geof Sheppard 07:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Devonport and Plymouth were officially united in 1914, and Devonport itself was previously Plymouth Dock, the main naval port having moved to the Tamar from Sutton Pool. In its use Guzz by extension describes Plymouth as a whole, as well as Devonport. If anything it would be applicable to all three articles. Maybe some explanation to this effect might remove the mystery. Stevebritgimp 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

An un-signed-in edit on the Arts Faculty has appeared - it sure is an odd building. I don't know if the University has proper permission to build so high. There is another building appearing in the old car park by the JSV, and that is contributing to the university blocking out all the views we all once had in the city. I suppose the Arts building at least looks like an Arts building - Barry Humphries famously commented on how much of an eyesore the Art College was - and he was spot on. Of course opposite this groundbreaking building we still have a forty yard circle of waste ground with a purple wooden wall around it. When will the city centre be finished? Is this an opportunity for some critique of the hagiography? Stevebritgimp 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is neutral in tone and fully referenced of course! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the Royal William Yard has appeared in the Transport section - this is kind of disembodied - I would have thought it would be relevant to something on regeneration of Plymouth, in particular reclaiming former military sites. I don't think there is anything at the moment.Stevebritgimp 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast Path

The South West Coast Path passes through the city, and there has been a proposal made that its article should be rewritten. At present it is largely long lists of towns, villages, and places of interest. If you can help turn these lists into prose, could you join in at Talk:South West Coast Path. Thanks. Geof Sheppard 12:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Dab Link

Would anyone be opposed to putting a dab link to Plymouth, Massachusetts at the top of this article, to go along with Plymouth (disambiguation)? Clearly there is a stronger opinion to leave the article the way it is, and therefore it should remain with "Plymouth" redirecting to this page. However, as was fairly established in the last debate, Plymouth, MA is by far more prominent than any other United States Plymouth, and therefore a set-up with a dab link to Plymouth, MA at the top of this page (as is currently used with Cambridge) would be appropriate. Raime 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems quite a reasonable thing to do. I think you should also do something to the Plymouth (disambiguation) page to make it obvious which is the most prominent Plymouth in the USA, and also put a clear link to that page from Plymouth, Massachusetts. Geof Sheppard 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead with the dab link and did as you said, putting a link to Plymouth (UK) and Plymouth (disambiguation) at the top of Plymouth, MA, as well as bolding Plymouth, MA on the dab page. Raime 05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Globe Theatre

Just me sounding off again: Whiteworks keeps describing this building as 'georgian' - yes, with a small 'g'. Both in terms of welcoming newcomers, and avoiding 3 reverts, I can't keep getting rid of this. I'm not sure what sort of 'georgian' is meant, one must assume it's the architecture, not the country or state. Here's a description from applause southwest:

The Globe Theatre Location: Stonehouse Barracks Plymouth PL1

Brief History / General info: The Globe Theatre, located inside the Royal Marine Barracks, opened in 1848 and was initially used by the men of the battalion.

The theatre had several alterations made to it over the years and in 1928 the seating capacity was increased to 250.

The theatre is a prime example of early Victorian architecture and, although unassuming from the outside, it has an attractive interior.

The Globe Theatre is not open to the public.

Here's another description, from parents guide to Plymouth:

Globe Theatre, Stonehouse, Plymouth. The Globe Theatre is set in the Royal Marine Barracks at Stonehouse. It is a beautiful Victorian theatre that is lovingly maintained and has that old theatre feel. As it is within the barracks you must obtain a ticket by booking prior to arrival, although tickets may be available at the gate.

Hppppff Stevebritgimp 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Degrading quality

Since the end of August this article has changed substantially.[4] However, the quality of the alterations is very erratic and a number of POV comments are finding their way into the prose. Requests for sources are also being lost through these edits and other miscellaneous issues. For example, in the second paragraph of the lede "destruction of the dockyards and city centre in the Blitz" has changed to "minimal damage to the dockyards but extensive destruction in the city centre in the Blitz". Neither of these are accurate IMO, but the original more closely matches the truth.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The original was very close to the truth, and if anything understates the case. The photographs in the H P Twyford book, It Came to Our Door reveal the extent of the devastation wreaked by the Luftwaffe during the blitz over a largely unprotected Plymouth; very little was left of the centre at all, and significant parts of the dockyard as well as Morice Town, Stoke, Devonport, etc were extensively collaterally redeveloped by Herr Goering's boys. A cursory glimpse at the Bomb Map in the Devon Records Office paints a very sombre picture indeed. My parents' experience, children at the time time, will perhaps underpin this: mother was bombed out of three houses during the blitz and my father twice. Sjc 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth's Climate

I think a section is needed for some data on Plymouth's climate, like the one used for London. Seeing as Plymouth is right in the south west it would set a good of example of true atlantic climate. I do not know how to insert such a table, but it would be great to see one on here. Bsrboy (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The table is actually a template {{Infobox Weather}}. Follow this link and copy the coding from one of the empty source boxes. All you need then is to follow the instructions (basically to delete all the bits you don't need) and insert the relevant data for Plymouth. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bsrboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I use the same data for nearby town Ivybridge and put "climate of the nearest city Plymouth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. Ivybridge is considerably higher than Plymouth, right on the edge of the moor, and five or so miles from the sea. So with those topographical differences it's likely to be noticeably colder for a start. And you couldn't use Plymouth's figures and state what I have just done, because that would be original research (unless you could find a reliable source - which I'm certainly not!) WP:UKCITIES does say only include a note on the climate "where the figures are available". But it does depend on whether we're talking macro- or micro-climate, I suppose. —SMALL JIM 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to tell. It says "If local data is available, consider using Template:Climate chart." I know that the temperature might differ slightly, but probably the same amount of rainfall and temperature. Plymouth itself is quite large and can vary from place to place. For example some areas of Plymouth are near to 150 metres above sea level - far higher than anywhere in Ivybridge and some areas of Plymouth are 5 miles away from the sea. I'm sure that this problem occurs in London too which is huge and yet it uses its climate data from Greenwich (5 miles from the city of London). In conclusion to this I've added the climate chart template to Ivybridge. It differs from the one used on Plymouth. Bsrboy (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arts and culture

I've united the various arts/culture/sport sections into one largish section, which would make a dfecent-sized article in its own right. Why bother? because the current article, at 52K, is bigger than WP:SIZE recommends. any comments? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sheffield is a featured article—so it's some sort of goal to aim for—and it has several sub-articles (though its main article is still 59Kb). WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY have some useful guidance. I say go for it and create a "Culture of Plymouth" article. There's easily enough for a separate "History of Plymouth" article too. —SMALL JIM 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I will. Hmm, "Culture of Plymouth"... that's not a phrase you hear every day... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Plymouth is go! But it needs work... Totnesmartin (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kool and the gang. Looks like there could be several spin offs that could improve the consistency of what remains.Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm offline at home currently (currently using the internet cafe's laptop), could somebody else take this on? I find it hard to get the time... :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given Culture of Plymouth a quick copyedit, but it needs a lot more to get it up to FA status ;-) —SMALL JIM 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ergh, not sure where to add this, but this page has definite signs of vandalism. It says Micheal Jackson and faggot on the front page. I have no idea how to fix it, so I'll just leave this here

Yes - appears this is a persistent vandal identified by various IP addresses - maybe needs a vandalism template slapping on their page. Still eats up 10 mins of someone's time sorting it - I'll do it myself this evening if I've a mind to. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up the city

I've started moving some headings around to closer match those recommended in the WP:UKCITIES project guideline. Ideally we still need "Geography" and "Landmarks" sections. The small "Green space", "Twinning" and "Military and Naval" sections need merging into others. I'm not sure now whether "Sport" should have gone into the "Culture of Plymouth" sub-article, even though I sort of suggested it above. Thoughts, anyone? —SMALL JIM 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This entry is becoming a complete mess, all puffs surmise and unverifiable controversial asertions. Someone should start again from scratch. there have been many better much earlier sections. If the sports section and 'culture' have to go why not this retail and the geography bits as well. it makes the city sound so pathetically ham. Exaggerating unjustifiable claim just brings on endless edits and deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.214.43 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've read the comments on your talk page. I'd suggest taking things slower – instead of running quickly through the whole article each evening, why not concentrate on one section that you are still unhappy with and explain here what you think is wrong with it? You'll find that most editors are willing to listen and respond to cogent arguments. But please read the guidance at WP:UKCITIES first and remember that this is a work in progress: in contrast to the article "becoming a complete mess" as you allege, I'd rather say that the article had become rather messy and we're now in the process of cleaning it up. —SMALL JIM 12:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Following comment copied from User talk:86.160.136.198
Could Smalljim please explain his vision and plan for the Plymouth page which he seems to have emasculated and is now combining a strange, almost perverse mixture of clinical and questionable detail with a strangely folksy approach to controversial and oddly labelled sections? Is the intention to provide one idiosyncratic view of the city or so reduce the detail as to make it worthless to any casual reader or researcher? Gingernut 18.2.2006

I've suggested a couple of times that it would be useful for you to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines – you obviously have not yet done so. I've also given you several chances to be civil, which you have ignored. Therefore I feel justified in not replying to your comment in any depth. I'll just say that you should not assume that I have written all the content that you are unhappy with. —SMALL JIM 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Culture of Plymouth article should be merged into this and a much larger sub-article for Sport and the picture of the Britannia should be moved to the sub-article of culture. Any thoughts welcome. Bsrboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know your current thoughts under the Sport heading below, Bsrboy. —SMALL JIM 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on public services is required after the sports section in compliance with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Bsrboy (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparent loss of the Spirit of Discovery

Has someone put a selective filter on my web connection, or has Plymouth dropped its "Spirit of Discovery" slogan? There's no mention of the phrase on the Council's Tourism and visitors page, which is the reference at Plymouth#Tourism. There's only one mention on the whole Council site (to a playground) and I can't find anything else that looks official via Google. —SMALL JIM 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference and changed the text to read "… used to market the city …", though even that's not an easy fact to verify (online at least). —SMALL JIM 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It says it on a signpost as your enter Plymstock. Maybe you could take a picture of it as proof...? Bsrboy (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that's one sign that the council hasn't got round to replacing yet. —SMALL JIM 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sport

Hi. All the sports info has reappeared on this page, and now there is in fact slightly less information about sport on the Culture of Plymouth page than there is here. The idea of having a subsidiary page is to keep the main city page from being cluttered with lots of information about lots of sports teams. I would concede that a mention of major sports teams in national competition, such as Argyle, Albion and Raiders would be fair, but an exploration of the origins of Pilgrim Pete would be better elsewhere. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a consensus as to where Sport in Plymouth belongs: it's just wrong to have the info duplicated as it is now. As I indicated earlier at Talk:Culture of Plymouth, I'd be inclined to separate sport from other culture and probably have a separate Sport in Plymouth sub-article. What do the rest of you think? —SMALL JIM 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. "A note on notable sports teams or sports centres." That's from the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. I suggest three paragraphs: Sports (using prose - NOT just a list), Arts (Robert Lenkivich - I can't spell), and Culture (nightlife etc). Bsrboy (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks - are you saying that these three paragraphs you suggest should be in the main Plymouth article or in one or more subarticles? Have a look at Wikipedia:Summary style, if you haven't already read it. —SMALL JIM 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The three paragraphs should be in this article (three paragraphs isn't too long). Bsrboy (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A dedicated Plymouth Sports page on Wikipedia would be far better to have for all the info plus in a bit more detail rather then have it just in Culture and a few mentions on the main Plymouth page IMO. We could Still have a few mentions on those pages but the majority of the info should have it's own page given the amount of Sports team i.e Argyle, Albion,Raiders and Devils plus more also Indivdual sportsman/woman too. What ever happens i am more then willing to help out.Phenom V1.0 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear it. I'd like to see a very large section (with prose) for the main article on sports in Plymouth and the section about sports, arts and culture to be a summary of sports, arts and culture. Bsrboy (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's three of us in favour of a new Sport in Plymouth page. I was hoping that one or two of the other regulars here would give an opinion, though I see that Stevebritgimp hasn't posted since 29 March, and Totnesmartin (the original proposer of the Culture page) seems to be on a wikibreak. Anyone else? If no-one expresses a strong opinion against in the next day or so, I suggest we go ahead. —SMALL JIM 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm neutral on the matter - sport-as-culture or separate sport is fine.Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you say Plymouth is a B-class article? Bsrboy (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When is work going to start if you don't mind me asking? Phenom V1.0 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment Plymouth has a section on sports, which is two paragraphs and a section on culture, which is four paragraphs. I have gone ahead and created the article, Sport in Plymouth, but the article on Culture of Plymouth contains some information on Sports. I shall go ahead and move the information about sports onto the seperate article about Sports on Plymouth, unless anyone objects? bsrboy (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-assessment April 2008

I have requested a re-assessment for Plymouth (currently start-class) on WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Devon. Bsrboy (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

International Links

Should we have the flags for them or not? (I say yes, but I want to hear other views) Bsrboy (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) and its talk page, where the whole issue of flags and flagicons has been exhaustively discussed. My personal opinion is that they don't add any useful information, so shouldn't be included, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything about it. —SMALL JIM 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

I don't know if it's just me, but Image:Karte Plymouth UK MKL1888.png and Image:Charles church today.jpg only partially load. Especially Charles church where I can only see about 2 cm of the top. Bsrboy (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's just you. What happens if you do a Shift-Reload on your browser? I'm a Mac user now, but I have found problems in the past on a PC with Wikipedia falling foul of ad-blocking software and Symantec/Norton security due to the image dimensions. One possible workaround is to change the default thumbnail size in "My preferences --> Files" --TimTay (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It works on firefox. Oh well, not the end of the world. Bsrboy (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

YES! It works. I think it's because I deleted all my temporary internet files. Bsrboy (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the only "Plymouth"

It is time for the discussion about whether this should be a disambig. page to resurface... Many people are being mislead by this erroneous non-disambig. Massachusetts, the automaker, the Rock -- all are equally important Plymouths.

Let the discussion begin again, ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.217.27 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What has changed since the previous discussions? DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Should some mention be made of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory? DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've added a paragraph about it it the Geography section. I don't know much about it, so any corrections or further information added to it would be great. Be bold my friend! :) bsrboy (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New infobox

Done

Hi, I've made a proposed new infobox for Plymouth in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it and tell me what you think. Consensus should be met on an edit as big as this. bsrboy (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which one are we talking about - the one with the nickname? ;) Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Something tells me I'm gona need a reference for that. Do you think it should use the current City of Plymouth logo as used on the city's council's website or the coat of arms with the motto on it? bsrboy (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Both the logo and the coat of arms are familiar to me - and I would suppose they're both associated with the council. I would personally prefer the coat of arms, with the green lion logo in the government section. Again speaking personally the nickname comes from 'City by the sea' which was a long poem about the city written fairly recently (80s?). Whether the title refers to something else previous I don't know. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Do you know where I could get a decent sized logo? bsrboy (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done couldn't find larger image, though and the nickname of shit hole by the sea has been removed. bsrboy (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How did the city get Spirit of Discovery attached to it, though? It doesn't even sound like a nickname - more like the invention of a desperately unimaginative bureaucrat. Does anybody actually use it? BTLizard (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

(<) See Talk:Plymouth#Apparent_loss_of_the_Spirit_of_Discovery above. We think it was a marketing phrase used by Plymouth tourism, now dropped. Do you know any better? —SMALL JIM 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's used on the "Welcome to Plymouth" road signs on the A38 and in Plymstock. Probably used elsewhere, but I haven't checked. I'm no so sure about how the infobox defines a nickname, but Spirit of Discovery is used very much. I don't think Plymouth has a nickname. bsrboy (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be Guzz - although there's some that would apply that solely to Devonport. Nowadays Devonport isn't seen as a separate entity, either civically or on maps, as it was in the early part of the twentieth century. Guzz was never an internal nickname for Devonport within the city, it's a naval nickname, much like Pompey for Portsmouth. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

After trying to do a little bit of research I can't find any nicknames for it, but if you can find a relible source for any nicknames then add it in. bsrboy (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as if it's more of a slogan - and a pretty hollow one at that - than a proper nickname to me. Mind you, I haven't lived in Plymouth since 1966! BTLizard (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shipbuilding

I know nothing on the subject, but I would imagine in the pre-Industrial age there might have been shipbuilding in the area. However I find it far-fetched that Plymouth was involved in building battleships for the Royal Navy in WWII, which the top section suggests. Can anyone shed any light on this? I think the mention of shipbuilding should be toned down, and ship maintenance emphasised. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a map in the history section from 1909 of the dockyards, which looks like it is capable of building war ships. If there's anything you know then please help! bsrboy (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If ships were built or laid down there ought to be information as to which ships.Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

about two thirds of the way down... there's a lot! bsrboy (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, reading your source was quite surprised. King Edward VII got me - and lo and behold on the wiki is [5] in dock - I'm even wondering if that photo is at Devonport, but I can't quite tell from the view, or from the page, and would need to rummage around in the source website. Interesting! Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Degrading quality II - well not really, it's confined to the header

Tone warning: the following will sound stern and unhappy, but is just observation - I'm smiling on the inside. Can't bring myself to read the whole article (so don't know if I would like it or not). Suffice to say that the usual things that happen have crept in again, and edits that don't cover us in glory have survived. So in the first paragraph the city has a red light district (easier to find on this page than reality - worse luck), was besieged by Parliamentarians in the 1640s, and on a more prosaic note, has two links to England and two to the United States in the top section, but none to the United Kingdom, in case anyone was wondering what state we were in or what the flag on top of the citadel signified. Stuff about the Pilgrim Fathers establishing the constitution of the US is a little daft too. Now, yes, I know, I can edit all this myself, but just wanted to make a note, as it seems we've lost the focus of the article after its major, and very welcome, sort out earlier this year. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get straight to it. By the way the lead had a link to the United Kingdom. At the moment it has two links to England, one to USA and one to UK. If I'm wrong, please let me know. bsrboy (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No - you're right, it said 11th largest university in the United Kingdom. I didn't see that. I still think that somewhere there should be something saying Plymouth is in the UK, rather than people having to work it out. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It says United Kingdom in the infobox, but if you'd rather I change "Plymouth is a city and unitary authority in Devon, England" to "Plymouth is a city and unitary authority in Devon, United Kingdom", I'll be more than happy to do so. :) bsrboy (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jut for your information, I put the sentence about the red light district and 20,000 capacity football stadium in to cover the sections on sport and culture in the lead. I'm more than happy for you to remove it, though! bsrboy (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's cool - I'm being a bit of a curmudgeon, and am having to revise my opinion - having actually read the article now it is massively stronger that it ever was before, bigger, longer, and well sourced. That will mean that it will stand up better to the weathering it periodically gets (and will in fact confine the 'usual' edits to the header. I was judging by looking at the edit history, rather than the article itself - so my bad (scars from previous situations here). Thank you for your diligent editing!! On the red light thing, it would be good to make some kind of 'cultural' comment in the header other than 'we have some prostitutes and football', but I'd have to think about what to put (!). When I read 'complete with red light district and 20,000 football stadium' it sounds like someone is making their time-honoured 'Plymouth has no culture' statements. Mention of the Theatre Royal as a producing theatre of national standing would be better. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to read, review and edit the article. I hope you stay with Wikipedia. When refering to the "usual" edits, does this have anything to do with the Janner dome being an alternative name to the airport? I remember similar IPs putting the information into the article after being reverted. bsrboy (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the sort of thing. Also what I would call the inferiority complex, i.e. the idea that Plymouth is not of any consequence, and anyone who says it is must be misguided. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If this sort of editing occurs again I will contact the IP as soon as possible. Has the IP ever replied? bsrboy (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The History section and summary style

To Bsrboy. See WP:SS. The main reason for spinning off sub-articles is to reduce the size of the main article, so the removed section must be summarised, not merely duplicated in the main article, as it substantially was here. Now maybe my summary was (as I suggested) rather feeble, but it's the sort of size that we should be aiming for - note that WP:SS says that the summary of the sub-article should be quite similar to the 'summary' in the parent article. Happy to hear your comments. —SMALL JIM 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll trim it down bit by bit, making sure I don't remove anything vital. You might have already noticed this, but I've been working my way down the history section assigning a reference to each sentence and making sure it all sounds good, but I'll jump straight to the 20th century sub-section right away. In part, the revert I did was so I could work on the main bulk of text and trim it down, but I'll copy and paste it into my sandbox, trim it down there and then when I've got a smaller size I'll copy and paste if back into the Plymouth article. bsrboy (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done It's a rough outline; probably needs a bit of tidying here and there. bsrboy (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - I think we're getting there. I've removed the date of Abercrombie's rebuilding that was wrong, and cut out some of the figures which I think provide excessive detail for a summary – obviously this is a subjective decision. Regarding referencing, can I suggest that in accordance with WP:SS, instead of referencing sentences in the History section here, you should be expanding and providing references for the information in the History of Plymouth article, and then just summarizing that content here. —SMALL JIM 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have a question: I see you've been breaking up book references onto seperate lines, why? bsrboy (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the many editors who find it helps to separate the citations in this way from the rest of the text. Now what is about summary style that you don't understand? Why are you still adding new refs to sentences in Plymouth#History instead of History of Plymouth? —SMALL JIM 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I want Plymouth to become a good article. Every sentence needs to be referenced for that to happen. I'll get round to the main history of Plymouth article later. bsrboy (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(<) Well you're not helping yourself by adding what appear to be fake references, such as this one with no page number and a spurious accessdate parameter. Same goes for this one. Have you seen these books? —SMALL JIM 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not fake. The google book search sometimes doesn't show a preview of the book, but it shows a snippet like a sentence of what you were searching for. Unfortunately they don't give out the page numbers, but I know that the facts they are referencing are in the book. I don't know what you mean by the accessdates; it's 5 July. bsrboy (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if that was what you were doing. My feeling is that Google book search snippets are not a reliable source, if only because the context is missing - as far as you know the snippet you see may be a statement made by someone else that the author then proceeds to demolish. For instance, to create a silly and extreme example, a snippet may say "Plymouth Citadel was built by aliens from the planet Zog in 1245", whereas in context the author is just quoting the opinion of Herbert Velikovsky, and goes on to state how stupid that is. The context is vital! I'm searching WP to see if there's been any discussion about this; if I can't find any, it may be a case for a question on ~~WT:RS~~ WP:RSN. —SMALL JIM 15:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a second reference in for the Citadel as backup any way. As for the one about the Civil War… Let's just say I'm working on it and I'll come back with a reference soon. bsrboy (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you happy that Google book search snippets are not reliable and shouldn't be used, or do you dispute this? I've found this where a respected editor emphasises the context bit. —SMALL JIM 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they're reliable, but some people may see otherwise e.g. good article reviewers, so I'll try and put in a second reference as well. I don't want to remove the references, though, because references to books make articles look proper. bsrboy (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(<) "…references to books make articles look proper." That's the wrong attitude and you'll get into trouble again if you're caught manipulating references to try to get an article to GA (or for any other reason). If you haven't seen the book, or a sizeable chunk of it on a reliable on-line site, then you must not cite it. Sometimes you just have to leave the computer and visit the library! For reference, I've asked for an opinion on Google Book Search snippets here. —SMALL JIM 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to make it look proper for the GA reviewers (that's what the second reference does), but for anyone reading the article. It also provides them with a book, which they might want to read to further their knowledge of Plymouth as well. I put the noticeboard on my watchlist. bsrboy (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of the discussion at WP:RSN#Google_Book_Search_snippets I've removed the references that you've added that are apparently based solely on Google Book Search snippets. I'm not claiming that the cited books are not reliable, and I'm not claiming that they're not relevant to the sentences they are attached to either. I've removed them because you have not seen enough of those books to verify their relevance (and I don't have immediate access to them to verify it myself). I've also removed one reference that does not verify the article content, and one that's to a not very reliable source, where there are plenty of better refs available. You can't just add references that seem vaguely appropriate, or look like they might be useful. Please see WP:SOURCES, in particular: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article…". —SMALL JIM 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

Now, returning to the original subject of this discussion - Summary style. Once an article is split in this way we need to ensure that the content edits are made to the specific ("main"/"detailed") article (in this case History of Plymouth), and the section in the parent ("summary") article (Plymouth#History) should just be a summary. This is clearly specified in the Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised section.

You are concerned about getting Plymouth to GA status - the References, citations and external links section says that it is not necessary to repeat all the references that are in the specific article in the parent article: you can be sure that GA reviewers are aware of this, but I suspect they would pick up where there are content discrepancies between the two articles. So please make your edits to History of Plymouth and then, when necessary, edit its lead para and Plymouth#History to match, as a summary.

Although achieving GA status is not one of my primary goals, I'd be happy to see this article get it, and certainly won't do anything to make it harder to attain. Hope this helps. —SMALL JIM 23:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Definately, thanks! I thought that I had to reference everything in here for GA, but I'll get to work on the main article now. bsrboy (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I've nominated the fact about Smeaton's Tower for the Did you know? section on the Main Page here. bsrboy (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture(s) for the Barbican

I've just uploaded three images of the Barbican from Flickr, but I'm dumbfounded as to which one to use in the landmarks section. They're all very nice and it's difficult to choose one over the other. Any thoughts? bsrboy (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The middle one shows the most, although that to me is Sutton Pool, as opposed to the Barbican proper, but it's a matter of inches - also none of the pictures are up to date, but again, that's a matter of street furniture. Again, I'd go with 2. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I could crop it, so it just shows the picture of Barbican (this image appears to be made up of three pictures). bsrboy (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So it does - if that was my picture I would have spent ages trying to get the brightness the same in each bit. I actually like that it shows more than just the warehouse fronts, and puts the area into context. Up to you. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd quite like to hear from Smalljim or any other passing editors before I do so. bsrboy (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference. —SMALL JIM 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll crop the second picture and put it into the article. bsrboy (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperial or metric?

this discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Climate and consistency

I noticed that the infobox uses imperial measurement before displaying metric and this is also present in the lead and the section on geography, however the section on climate uses metric before the imperial. My preference is to use metric, but its usage should be based on the topic. It is the same for the article on London, too. Any thoughts? bsrboy (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of random places - Manchester has a small climate infobox which displays metric measurements while imperial is hidden. Liverpool has nothing about its climate. This looks like a job for ~~bicycle repair man~~ the UK Geography project. I'll pop over and annoy them about it now. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims as first American colonists?

This statement seems to be in error - first, there were other European nations colonizing before the English, and second, Jamestown, Va. was founded in 1607, Plymouth, Mass. in 1620. Amwyll Rwden (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - have changed, although now a little verbose. Hopefully my new version hits all the buttons. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This statement has been replicated in four places: in the lead of Plymouth and History of Plymouth, in the history section of Plymouth and in a section within the History of Plymouth. I've found a reliable source to prove that it was the second colony and added it to the sections; didn't add in the lead, because it's little bit untidy. Vittel Salt (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request for this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been requested that this page be moved to Plymouth, Devon - a discussion has been occurring at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)#Requested move. Feel free to comment. Knepflerle (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This request reached no consensus and was archived without any action. Vittel Salt (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

Plymouth (automobile)

{{editprotected}} Plymouth (automobile) and Plymouth Colony should be added to the hatnote, as two of the most likely targets (probably more likely than this city in Devon) 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, could we possibly stop being so US-centric. The fact that some (but not all) people in the USA can't concieve of anything outside the USA being more important than something within the USA doesn't alter the fact that for most of the English speaking world, the City in Devon is the thing they think of first when hearing the name. Mayalld (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the requested move. I can't think of a better reason for a disambiguation page sitting at Plymouth. Two countries with clearly 2 or 3 answers with what belongs here. Both sides are right - in England the primary use is the city and in the U.S. the primary view is either the car or the city/Plymouth rock. Nationalistic views on both sides and no world view by anyone. How the U.S. city got to be included in the hatnote and the U.S. car didn't is beyond me. Royal broil 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Plymouth (automobile) should be added to the hatnote, as one of the most likely targets (probably more likely than this city in Devon). NOTE: I am ***NOT*** from the US, from my IP address, you can tell that easily. In Canada, neither Plymouth Colony nor Plymouth England is primary usage of the term, it is the car company, so it should be at the dablink. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the logs, this page isn't semi-protected. This means that anonymous users without accounts can edit the article, as well as people with accounts that are four days old. It is, however, move protected. Anonymous users cannot move any articles, but users with accounts that are four day old can. As this article is move protected, only sysops/admins can move it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I've started putting some comments about this article on Wikipedia:Peer review/Plymouth/archive3 but then found out that the user who requested a peer review is banned, so I'm not sure what is going on & whether the comments are useful or other editors would be interested in them?— Rod ^talk 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of the banned user at the Admin noticeboard. All opinions are welcome there. As for the peer review, someone else would have requested it before long, so it might as well continue, thanks. —SMALL JIM 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the level of interest that thread has gained from sysops (zero excluding Jim) I'd say ignore. Let's just improve the article on Plymouth and cut out the drama. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about anyway. 64.18.144.131 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I've added a few more comments - let me know if you want me to take another look but I think you could go for GA soon.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, what's a back-formation? 64.18.144.131 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Back-formation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know what half of the words mean in that article. The issue was raised on the peer review and I'm not sure how to explain it simply for the average reader (and to myself). 64.18.144.131 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan! 64.18.144.131 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

union street

made a small edit to reflect the fact that on most evenings there is only one licensed premises left open (the Cherry Tree pub) in union street. On saturdays 90% of the drinking population can now be found in the drake circus area - voodoo lounge, roundabout, skiving scholar, cuba etc.219.83.84.42 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is cited by a reliable reference (the BBC), which was published just a week ago. If you can find a reliable reference stating that 90% of the drinking population can be found in the Drake Circus area, I will be happy to add it in. Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

distance from london

i changed this because i know from 1000's of trips between the 2 cities that it is definately not 195 miles.86.137.47.66 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Earth, the distance from the centre of Plymouth to the centre of London is about 190 miles. I do not understand why you added a hyperlink to Marjon's website. Jolly Ω Janner 23:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a (very old) road sign in Marldon (just outside Paignton) that says 189 miles to London. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposed tornado

Jolly Janner has added a sentence on a tornado that was supposed to have hit the city in 1810, citing a passing BBC reference. The article has already included this claim: it was added by an IP in Sept 2005 and removed in Feb 08 as uncited. I've removed the sentence again because the balance of probabilities suggests that this event took place in Portsmouth and Southsea, not Plymouth. The BBC probably made a mistake in attributing this event here.

We'll need some evidence for that claim, so here we go:

List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks mentions two tornadoes in 1810: Fernhill Heath - Hampshire on 22 September "Widest known and perhaps strongest British tornadoes", and Southsea on 14 December 1810 "Perhaps strongest British tornado" (both uncited, but see next).
TORRO's website has a page entitled British & European Tornado Extremes. It mentions the two most intense tornadoes to have known to have hit the UK: one in 1091 and "On September 22, 1810, another T8 tornado tracked from Old Portsmouth to Southsea Common (Hampshire)". The same page mentions that the widest tornado path was on the same day, at Fernhill Heath (Hereford & Worcester).
A BBC Weather Centre page references the above TORRO page as do mentions in The Independent and The Times.
Plymouthdata.info - a recognised good source - mentions some 19th century hurricanes and storms, e.g. this, but the only mention of a tornado is spurious.
I've never seen a mention of a tornado in any of my reference books that cover Plymouth. You'll have to trust me on that.
Most of the Google hits for "plymouth tornado 1810" appear to derive from that BBC article or the old version of this article, e.g. The Guardian. None of them seems to provide any extra detail. (Most of the hits refer to US Plymouths.)
And the clincher, I think: The Edinburgh Annual Register for Dec 1810 (pp. 257-8) "The town and vicinity of Portsmouth were visited on Friday, the 14th, by that phenomenon of nature, a tornado. It passed in the direction of W. S. W. to N. E. and did very considerable local damage…"

So, there's some confusion over the date (TORRO has it wrong), but I think there's little doubt that it occurred at Portsmouth, not Plymouth. Happy to discuss if anyone wants to dispute these findings. —SMALL JIM 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... You sure do some good research! I originaly spotted it on the Finish Wikipedia, which got me researching the topic, but your overwealming research has discouraged me, so I'd better removed it from the Finish Wikipedia too. P.S the recent vandalism to the article, which refered to you had nothing to do with me. I have no idea why it happened. Jolly Ω Janner 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Since it was the second time that this supposed tornado had been added to the article, I thought it wise to blow it away as best as I could. The references should prove useful the next time someone decides to add it, too. Regarding the vandalism, I assumed that September outbreak came via /b/. Is that right? —SMALL JIM 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, although I don't think the latest one was /b/'s doing. Maybe someone looked in the revision history and thought it would be amusing to repeat it. Oh well, have a nice day :) Jolly Ω Janner 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennycross Primary School

This school doesn't seem to be notable so i have suggested a merge with this article or any related ones that can fit the info of the school article. JForget 20:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Honicknowle. City articles shouldn't mention primary schools. Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 8 May 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)

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 now been mentioned in the economy section of the article. Jolly Ω Janner 12:23, 23 October 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)

Change hatnote

Currently we have a link to Plymouth, MA and to the disambiguation page at the top of the article. I got some data of page views and over the course of a year Plymouth, MA got 162,437 (with huge seasonal variance) and Plymouth (car brand) got 170,543. As a result I propose that both be added to the hatnote along with the dab page. Jolly Ω Janner 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No objection. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we also add Plymouth Colony and Plymouth (automobile) :) DC T•C 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More importantly the dab page is obsolete - see Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation). It doesn't even mention the colony!--Nilf anion (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just put the entire dab page at the top of this article in one big happy hatnote? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to just put the dab page here, and move this article away... as in the move request... if you were going to do that. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Or even easier to remove the link to Plymouth, MA on the hatnote. Jolly Ω Janner 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that hatnotes are for when there are two almost equally prevalent uses of a term, that hatnotes be used instead of a dab. If there are 3 or four equally prevalent uses of the term, there is no primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth (car) and Plymouth, MA are two almost equally prevalent uses of the term "Plymouth", so I have now added them both to the hatnote. Jolly Ω Janner 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And Plymouth, Devon would be number three. A hatnote is not prescribed for this kind of situation. Plymouth in England is not the primary topic, all three are. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It has over twice as many hits. That's just absurd to say that it's almost equally prevalent. Plymouth is the primary topic. Jolly Ω Janner 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It barely pulls twice that of the car brand. The car + the MA city has more hits combined than this city. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect: Plymouth had 387,694 hits and MA and car combined had 332,980 hits (stats are located above). How you can claim that there are three almost equally prevelant uses of the term for "Plymouth"? There are quite clearly two and only two, leaving Plymouth as the primary topic. And this is without bring wikilinks into it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Jolly's use is fine and is prescribed by T:OU, via WP:HAT and WP:DLINKS. But to both Jolly and Floydian: this (now seemingly tiny) sub-section is not the place to discuss the primacy of Plymouth, Devon - that's going on in the section above. I encourage both of to participate if you haven't already done so :P . Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The consensus is generally opposed; since both an "Opposed" or a "No consensus" result would mean in the status quo being retained, this is moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Plymouth (disambiguation) → Plymouth

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 Purple backpack89 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)

Proposal discussion

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:

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

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[6] and news[7][8]. 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)

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 Purple backpack89 02:58, 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 Purple backpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is the definitive Support argument which no one has addressed, much less refuted. One can argue that one is much more likely to search for "plymouth colony" than "plymouth" when looking for that topic, but anyone seeking the automobile make or the city in Massachusetts is just as likely to type just "Plymouth" as is anyone looking for the city in England. The other uses are simply too well known and significant for any topic to be primary for this name. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  - The problem is that this city gets 53% of the traffic (within the 50-60 range) in February. NB this excludes Plymouth Colony (if you're gonna start including that you might as well include Plymouth Argyle F.C., which gets more than the town in MA or car brand). In November (Thanksgiving), the data changes slightly giving Plymouth, Devon only 50% of the total views, which is right on the boundary and not a reassuring figure. Although this is only for one month. Note how Plymouth, MA gets a fine spike on 26 November, whereas there is none for Plymouth, Devon, showing that this is only an annual event causing such changes. Another thing on top of this is that the car brand gets more views outside of November than Plymouth, MA, so perhaps a change in the hatnote would be worthy. Jolly Ω Janner 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    - I'm sorry born2cycle, but I really don't see how you can say no one has addressed, much less refuted this asertation. A good proportion of the discussion below is all about this. Firstly there have been comments and questions about how these stats are open to temporal bias, being as they are only for 1 month (leading people by the hand to these, they can be found here, here and here). With no one using these figures as an argument actually bothering to tot up over a longer time period. Secondly and most importantly: nowhere, especially in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and no consensus here, has said that hit counts are the definitive argument (or any combination of tests) when incoming links are also to be taken into account. Not only has it been addressed (not resolved obviously :) ), it is being highly contested by a number of editors (here and here) and is the whole debate that I have said that we should be having (here and here). Cheers Zangar (talk) 22:17, 26 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.--Nilf anion (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 Purple backpack89 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.--Nilf anion (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).--Nilf anion (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.[9]] 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.[10] 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)

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. Purple backpack89 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)

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 Purple backpack89 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)

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 :)--Nilf anion (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).--Nilf anion (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.--Nilf anion (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! Royal broil 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[11][12][13] and 23 Dec works out to be only about 4.5K[14], 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 Purple backpack89 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 Purple backpack89 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)

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. Royal broil 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 Purple backpack89 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)

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)

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 Purple backpack89 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.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:57, 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)

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. Dough 48 72 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have started a discussion concerning Dover, see Talk:Dover#Requested move. Dough 48 72 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 (Late signature by Fmph (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) )

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)

I hope no one is suggesting that I hold a British view? Fmph (talk) 13:11, 26 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)

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)

Done. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

That makes more sense, but I'm not sure why most English/UK cities can be named just the city while most other cities must be appended with state/province/region or country. Why are UK cities held to a different standard? --Vossanova ^o< 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that they are. I think that in many cases, when people went to the US and named places after places in the UK, they chose significant places in the UK to name them after, so they're automatically more significant. Of course, there are some cases in which US places or Australian ones overtake the place they were named after such as Boston and Ermington. Jolly Ω Janner 14:40, 26 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)

Oppose Parochial North American point-making. Just leave it be. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not surprisingly, this user's user page has a "This user lives in the UK" user box and makes no reference to the primary topic argument. Discount/ignore accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  - For consistency perhaps you could suggest a way of ignoring all comments here from people who have kept information about their nationality private? I guess if this were a discussion about Israel you would want to strike all comments from Jews? Alternatively you could consider the guidance of WP:ADHOM and advise Plutonium27 to do the same. Fæ (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    - I think the best thing to do is just to ignore any comments, which you think are poor and bias and don't make it worse by drawing attention to the user's location. Jolly Ω Janner 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    - I suggest the "Parochial North American" comment should be ignored (not giving any weight whatsoever in deciding the outcome of this proposed move) because it stems from regional bias (which is pretty obvious without knowing the editor in question hails from the UK, but that user box just confirms it). I also suggest that the "leave it be" comment be discounted if not ignored because it is not based on any kind of policy or guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
      - I have defacto regional bias? What, like Floydian, whose stated location and topic interests re South Ontario apparently have nothing to do with this or with his similar proposal over at Cornwall? Plutonium27 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        Please desist from repeating inappropriate WP:ADHOM arguments.
        
        As a separate point not relating to claims of Nationalism, it should be noted that Floydian (talk · contribs) has raised the same proposal at Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, Talk:York (amongst others) and village pump. These proposals are a obvious example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Fæ (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        What is specifically WP:ADHOM about directing attention to a similar series of so-far unwanted proposals by a user who takes care to point out his extensive edit contributions (and residence/study) right in the area for which several of his suggestions apply? The evidence suggests that far as Floydian's area of interest and origin is concerned, this is parochialism at its worst. Whether you agree with his suggestions for disambig or not, accusing me of adhom argument is frankly a piss-take. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        This is a discussion about a proposed move, not about Floydian. My comment related to similar proposals being raised (by Floydian) on other articles, I made no claim based on Floydian's expressed interests on their user page as to personal bias. Making such arguments about the person rather than the topic takes discussion off-topic. As you asked, this specifically means where you referred to Floydian's user page and questioned their personal motivations, this is known as an ad hominem argument. If you wish to complain about Floydian's behaviour (or mine) then please follow a dispute resolution process rather than posting them here where they will achieve nothing but disrupt the discussion. Fæ (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. To imply that the US city does not have world wide recognition is a rather poor argument. Clearly the car is significant in historical terms and to today's usage. The arguments to not consider Plymouth Colony by saying Plymouth is not it's common name are simply without any merit and lack of understanding of what it is called. Beyond any question, this should be the primary use. Clearly Plymouth Colony is a significant historic point for both the US and the UK. I don't generally support page views for determining a primary use. I do support them to show that there may not (or is not) a primary use. Clearly that is the case here again. The main argument voice seems to be that this is the oldest. Well, that does not equate to being the primary use. We should do the least harm when sending readers to a specific page. The current setup directs too many readers to the wrong page forcing them to go to the dab page or follow a longish hat note to find out where they should have been directed. Moving the dab page is the only sensible option. I think the root problem here is that too many editors think that by not having their article at the main name space is a bad thing. Dab pages are actually a good thing and should be used more. These points are not Parochial North American point-making. They are simply the facts. As someone pointed out in another discussion, this is the English language wiki. The is the English language in all its variations wiki and not the British wiki. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Plymouth is the primary topic because of the great number and variety of other topics to which it is relevant. Despite what any statistics might say, breadth of relevance is the best way to determine which topic is the most likely to be searched for by readers.
To emphasise this breadth, note that Plymouth is the location of some of the earliest Homo sapiens evidence in England; it was a prehistoric tin trading centre; it was the home port for Tudor and Elizabethan explorers such as Drake, Hawkins and Gilbert; the Mayflower set out from here; it had a pivotal role during the English Civil War; Napoleon Bonaparte was brought here after Waterloo; a pioneering lighthouse and breakwater were designed and built here. In WWII it was an important embarkation point for D-Day and it was the subject of the Plymouth Blitz; until WWII it was one end of the transatlantic liner route, and for over 60 years its Union Street was known as the "servicemen's playground" where sailors from all over the world were entertained by internationally famous performers, etc. It's been home to many famous people, including Scott of the Antarctic. Today it has a renowned university, the largest naval base in Europe, over 500 years of military defences, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the National Marine Aquarium, Plymouth Gin, the British Firework Championships, and it's a ferry port and a regional TV centre.
What do the competing topics have to offer in comparison to all that variety? —SMALL JIM 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Smalljim put it excellently. Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Support move After reading through the comments above I wish only to say that I am somewhat taken back that what should be a fairly simple determination has swelled into such a contentious debate. There is no doubt that Plymouth, England has historical significance and knowone is trying to say otherwise and the point really shouldn't be that one article is more important than another but simply calling this article "Plymouth" isn't truthful about any of the articles and is, except as a disambiguation page, rather misleading to our readers. The title Plymouth should be for the Dab page so that no matter what plymouth our readers are looking for, it would be accessible. I realize that there are users that are going to want to read about Plymouth, England but my guess is by the sheer volume of things named Plymouth something that the majority of the readers are not going to expect automatically getting a City in England. The bottom line is we have to think of what our readers are going to be looking for. This isn't the American Wikipedia or the British Wikipedia, its just Wikipedia and we need to keep that in mind when we name an article something that could represent more then 220 different Plymouths Just my 2 cents. --Kumioko (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I have heard plenty about the English city, never heard of the automobile before. Page hits aren't everything. Each case must be decided on its individual merits, some other cases like Lincoln and Cork are not analagous. The term "cork" has some common uses known round the world besides the Irish city. Abraham Lincoln is a major historical figure, and the city of Lincoln in England, although important, is not quite as large or important as Plymouth. PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sure that there are several pretenders to the undisambiguated namespace. However, those arguing that it should point to the car brand must know they are going against world view – the world at large (outside of N America) has never heard it. Again, few outside the US will have heard of Plymouth, Massachusetts, the notability of which is eclipsed by a significant number of US cities – confusion will reign supreme if one were to remove the name of the state. Most will however be somewhat aware that Plymouth is home of the Mayflower, and where the history of British colonialism in America began. Therefore, the British city is the only subject which represents a world view, and has rightful claim of that namespace. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI I agree that pointing it to the car or to the US town isn't the right thing to do either but leaving this article pointing to the British city doesn't represent a world view either (unless you are inferring that the world would only care about this city). The only way to represent a world view would be to make Plymouth the dab page. In the end though it really doesnt matter because there is clearly no concensus to move the article so there is little point in continuing to argue about it. --Kumioko (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per stats below. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - As per arguments above and below. I cannot believe that Plymouth (UK) is not as equally well known in the U.S as Plymouth Massachusetts, given the story of the pilgrim fathers. (Even though they actually came from Southampton!)--Ykraps (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it as well known, that means there is no primary topic. Plus, your argument doesn't address the auto brand. DC T•C 17:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not my argument, it is merely a passing comment. My opposition is based on the arguments already put forward on this page; as stated. Also, if you read carefully, you will see that I have said equally well known in the U.S.. Outside the U.S., I would say it was infinitely better known! Out of interest, how many Plymouth cars are sold outside of the United States?--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Alot were sold outside the US, given that the primary usage in Canada is likely the car company. If the primary usage in the UK is Devon, and the primary usage in the US is Massachusetts or the car company, it seems that the Worldwide English-language view is not the place in Devon, since it isn't that in Canada nor the US. I can't figure out why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is being ignored in this matter, letting the UK usage be dominant; as explained by an Australian user, the three topics have fairly equal priority in Australia, so a worldwide point of view certainly is not about Devon. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As many as that?! It makes you wonder how Toyota manage to stay in business. BTW the U.S., Canada & Australia does not represent a world-wide view. Why do assume that these are the only English speaking nations?--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.K., the U.K. and the U.K. does not represent a world-wide view either. Why do assume that this is the only English speaking nation?

Neither the U.S. or the U.K. city are particularly notable outside of their respective countries. If you think the world has a vast knowledge about Plymouth, Devon think again. It is a sea port that is important in the U.K. Likewise, the U.S. city is important in the U.S. Most of the world would have no knowledge of either.

As I have said above, this is really an argument of the U.S. versus the U.K. because the importance of these two cities is (mainly) limited between these two countries. Since neither the U.S. or U.K. override each other, a disambiguation page is the fairest outcome. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One is a city, which is the origin of all Plymouths in all the world, whereas the other is a town. Of which, the city gets over twice as many hits as the town and nearly five time the incoming links. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? Neither place is particularly notable outside of their home countries, and the primary topic changes depending on whether you live in the U.S. or the U.K. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What you just said could be applied for Modbury as an example. Neither the place in England or Australia are particularly notable outside of their countries. Although I would argue Plymouth (and to a less extent Plymouth, MA) would be more so notable outside of their respective countries, than Modbury. However, we should also use other tools available to us as well such as page views and wikilinks etc. On second thoughts, Modbury was a bad example as both terms' page views are about equal, but you get the idea. Jolly Ω Janner 23:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry?! Are you saying that people in the U.S. have never heard of Plymouth (UK)? I find that very hard to believe given that Americans have a public holiday to celebrate the arrival of the pilgrim fathers. That's akin to someone celebrating Christmas and then claiming never to have heard of Jesus! Plymouth (UK) is exceptionally well known outside its own country, notably in the United States where most Americans recognise it (incorrectly) as the place the pilgrim fathers set out from!--Ykraps (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the car manufacturer; I would suggest that Austin has sold more cars worldwide (mostly Minis) than Plymouth, yet Austin goes to Austin, Texas!--Ykraps (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

Wasn't aware of this being a poll considering the amount of discussion that ocurred. Jolly Ω Janner 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because this extended discussion section was getting so long I took the liberty to resection this into separate poll and discussion sections. That way someone can click on "edit" next to either "Poll" or "Discussion" depending on which section they are interested in editing. Without the "Poll" subheading if you click "Edit" on the main section it's difficult to find the place to add another vote (just above this Discussion subheading). This is a traditional format for WP:RM discussions sections and helps prevent edit conflicts and associated problems. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

Plymouth Colony should be included as we are trying to determine the primary topic not the primary article name. The topic encompasses "Plymouth" in general, so the U.K city and its related concerns, matters pertaining to the U.S. town and its history (such as the historic colony), and the Plymouth car brand, including individual models, et cetera. I will reiterate that this discussion is not limited to just three articles: we are discussing three topics. There is a difference. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:06, 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)

This pie chart is misleading and comes from a source deemed incomplete and inaccurate. There are at least as many English speakers in India as there are in the U.S. The majority of English speakers come from outside the U.S. and this is an encyclopaedia for English speakers is it not?--Ykraps (talk) 07:25, 30 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 split into sub-articles as well:

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 still believe Britain is the centre of the universe (which it 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.--Nilf anion (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/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)

If in doubt, disambiguate. If there is a dichotomy as you suggest, then why would we maintain the status quo? No one here is arguing that "Plymouth" should be the name delegated to either the U.S. city or the brand of car. All we are saying is that there is no primary topic when regional differences are taken into consideration. I understand that those residing in the U.K. will feel the the city in England is "primary". I also understand that those living in North America will feel that the U.S. town in MA and the brand of car are "more important". I am from Australia, and I do not feel that either city is overwhelmingly more important than the other (as it needs to be to qualify as a "primary topic"). Both have historical significance–Plymouth in the U.K. is a major sea port—the city in the U.S. was one of the first in the country to be colonised by the British (its importance in this sense is only overshadowed by Jamestown, Virginia).

What has not been demonstrated to me is this: in what way is the U.K. city significantly more important than the one in the U.S.? Please someone answer this. I will happily change to "oppose" if this can be demonstrated, but remember the key phrase is "significantly more important" not "slightly more important", as this is what is required to qualify as "primary topic". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But my point is about where the dichotomy exists not the fact it does. As it exists here in terms of Topic A vs. No topic being primary shows that actually there are valid arguments on both sides, especially as both sides are basing this on interpretations the main guideline. The doubt here is not which topic is primary, as I've stated, but "is Plymouth, Devon the primary topic?" and "is there, subsequently, suitable reason to disambiguate?"

I agree with your statement that both sides of the pond will have differing views as to which is the most important, using populations, historical significance (I know I was previously guilty of citing this, alongside the valid point of incoming links, before thoroughly reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) etc, but under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC these are not clear indicators (or clear dis-indicators for that matter) therefore should not be considered, as quite a few editors have rightly pointed out. We should just stick to that prescribed by the guideline and look at likelihood - importance is not actually a factor.

The main thrust behind what makes Plymouth, Devon significantly more likely is the incoming links; I refer you back to Nilfanion's original post on this many days ago. This has been repeated many times as it shows a significance as Plymouth, Devon had 3,320 links and the other top ones put together come to the 1,420 of the other major articles (including Plymouth Colony's 549) put together, more than twice as many! (I know this doesn't cover all the other pages, but I'll endevour to add them up shortly). This is the demonstration of why Plymouth, Devon is the primary topic. So, as I say above, I think what should be debated now is does this demonstrated fact merit this move/non-move situation. Zangar (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OS, this is not the place to start accusing people of thinking Britain is the centre of the Universe. We're having a discussion using the relevent policies and I'm pointing out flaws in the methods use. Such talk is not constructive. My point with the individual car brands still exists that people will not type "Plymouth" into the search bar expecting that brand to come up. Part of this move discussion should be about the technical reasons of having the disambiguation page there and at the moment, it is fine, because people searching for those car brands can type in "Barracuda" for example. Jolly Ω Janner 12:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It is usually the Americans who want articles tailored to their perspective, but this time it's the British editors wanting this. In fact, in a bit of "shock, horror" moment, the U.S. editors have all supported the concession of disambiguating the "Plymouth" page. If the British editors cannot see the significance of the U.S. town then they are clearly being insular. Wikipedia should not pander to nationalistic bias—whether that be British, American or Australian. I am not saying the U.K. town is unimportant. Being from Australia, Plymouth in the U.K. is significant as the starting point of Captain Cook's voyage to Australia when he discovered the east coast. However, the U.S. equivalent also must not be ignored either as it was significant early settlement to North America by the British. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that you are generalising users based on nationalities, which is unfair; if not, offensive. I have, from the start, recognised that the US town and to a lesser extent the car brand are significant topics, but that the city in England is the primary topic above all of them, being much more significant and also receiving more page views than them put together. This indicated that there wouldn't be a technical problem of the city in England being located at "Plymouth" and having a hatnote to the dab page (as well as the link to the town in the US we already have). Jolly Ω Janner 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be generalising but it is nonetheless an accurate generalisation. You will find there is at least some element of truth in all stereotypes/generalisations, even if they are exaggerated. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Americans are insular to other western nations, just as "the west" as a collective body is often very insular when it comes to non-western cultures.

Your page view argument is not taking into account what I said above. That is, we are trying to determine the primary topic not the primary article title. Each type of "Plymouth" encompasses the topic in general. I will reiterate that this discussion is not limited to just three articles: we are discussing three topics–there is a difference—hence the name "primary topic". Thus:

The U.S. city topic includes the articles Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth Colony.

The automotive brand includes the articles Plymouth (automobile) and articles on the individual models (i.e. Plymouth Barracuda, Plymouth Prowler, Plymouth Voyager, Plymouth GTX, et cetera).

Please answer this question: In what way is the "city in England is the primary topic above all of them, being much more significant"? OSX (talk • contributions) 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That is deviating significantly from the meaning of the primary topic guidelines: You can't just add up the traffic stats from all the Plymouth and say "because this is much bigger than the traffic to the one article about the UK city", its clearly not a "fair" test. Adding up the traffic for all articles relating to Plymouth, Devon would be a more reasonable comparison, but traffic stats are not the perfect measure to begin with (they record page hits not how many people searched and obtained that page). The further you take them from a simple comparison the less useful they are - there's going to be individuals looking at multiple Plymouth car articles at once. In terms of judging the relative importance of the topics all you can really do is compare the traffic of the base articles: sub-topic traffic is not traffic about the topic.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It's well-known that Google search is not much use in discussions such as this because of the automatic customisation of the results based on the user's location. I've just discovered that Microsoft's Bing allows its search results to be tailored to over 30 countries/regions. See here for a search on "Plymouth". I'm not going to attempt an analysis, but selecting different countries does give very different results. I'd suggest that this discussion isn't closed until the ramifications of this are considered by the interested parties - it may prove to be the decisive factor. —SMALLJIM 11:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure that most people get to Wikipedia articles by Google (or some other search engine) and as a result, people in the US, where there appears to be a more tainted view point to searching for Plyouth car brand and the town in Massachusetes (or heaven forebind search for "Plmouth Colony" by typing "Plymouth"). This lowers the need for the page at Plymouth to be disambiguated. Jolly Ω Janner 11:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing I noticed is that Bing is very commerce-driven. Lots of sites advertising to sell parts for Plymouth cars on US search and lots of places advertising hotel rooms on UK search. I doubt that Bing really reflects what people search for and more so based on advertisements/money. Jolly Ω Janner 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Given the reams of discussion above, where it can't even be agreed upon what criteria to use to determine the primary topic, it seems pretty clear to me that there can be no such determination. Powers ^T 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I'd agree with you there; that no consensus on what criteria to use makes it hard if at all possible to say what the primary topic is, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one. I feel sorry for the admin closing this one, they would definitely deserve to sit down and have a cup of tea off all of us! Zangar (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Update on Bing search above. It looks as if Google can be made to work the same way by adding:
&pws=0&gl=US
(or GB or AU or NZ etc.) to the URL (full list of country codes here). The &pws=0 disables personalized web search, apparently. For instance, this evidently shows the US results on google.co.uk and similarly this shows the UK results on com. For comparison, here's India and Australia. —SMALL JIM 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've noticed something from researching page views. On Ermington, it goes straight to the dab page. The suburb in Australia has about 750 views whilst the dab page has about 250, so about a third of people arrive to the Ermington in Australia by going via the dab page. I pressume the other two thirds arrive via wikilinks and Google. Jolly Ω Janner 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This assumes no one headed for Ermington, Devon will first go to the dab page. It's true that the Devon town has only a total of 190 views last month, but surely some of them arrived via the dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

These were only approximations, although taking that into account it might look more like a quarter of people go via the dab pages. Jolly Ω Janner 15:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought experiment

A useful thought experiment to undertake in all primary topic move debates is to assume the move in question succeeds and consider what argument could or would be made to reverse that move, or whether stability is likely to ensue.

In this case that means assuming this article is moved to Plymouth, Devon and the dab page is moved to Plymouth. Now assume it stays that way for a few months or a year... what argument could then be made that the dab page should be moved to Plymouth (disambiguation) and the city to Plymouth? Could such a move be justified by arguing that the city in Devon is the primary topic for Plymouth?

This whole discussion reminds me a lot of the protracted multiple attempts to move Cork to Cork (city). The resistance was considerable, similar to what we have here, but eventually some admin simply decided to go ahead with the move. And it has been stable ever since. The idea of proposing the reverse -- to move the dab page at Cork to Cork (disambiguation) so that the city in Ireland could be moved to Cork could reasonably be rejected per WP:SNOW. I'm sure the usage of Cork to refer to the city seemed as primary to those folks as the usage of Plymouth to refer to the Devon city seems to many here, but that doesn't mean it's the primary topic. If this page is moved, does anyone honestly think they could make a persuasive argument in the future that this city is primary and should be moved back to Plymouth? Seriously? I call snow on that too. I suspect most everyone realizes that and that's why there is so much passion to prevent the move from happening. But that is evidence in and of itself that the move should happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait until Thanksgiving is over and then based on the fact that this article will show more page views than the rest put together and far more wikilinks to it, I will try to persuade the community into a consensus to move it back per WP:Primary topic. Jolly Ω Janner 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we go for at least a few months, say until March, and the page use statistics support the claim that Plymouth, Devon is clearly the primary topic for Plymouth per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, then I will support a move back. It should be noted that this question can never be settled as long as this topic remains at Plymouth. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly settled for me that this Plymouth is the primary topic. Only a quarter of visitors come via the search bar anyway, so there would be little change in the page views after such a move. --Jolly Ω Janner 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose another thought experiment: imagine a Wikipedia where every ambiguous term or topic in the English language, every homonym, metonym and synonym, has been thoroughly disambiguated. Where only pure, unique intellectual concepts are allowed the privilege of their own landing page. It would be a morass of meaningless pages that would eventually force people into using external search tools to avoid. A primary topic should always be used where at all possible. Read the article on Information entropy (but remember to go through Entropy (disambiguation) before you get there). Blakkandekka (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you completely. I'm a big proponent of putting articles about primary topics at the plain name (I have encountered editors who have questioned the premise of primary topic). But it has to be the primary topic or it's too confusing for our readers. For example, it would be confusing to have Entropy (information theory) moved to Entropy, displacing the article about entropy in general to who-knows-where.

I just don't think the topic in question here meets the criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to base that opinion primarily on page landings. OK then, here's another little thought experiment: Wikipedia is at root just a MySQL database & some PHP. It's perfectly technically feasable to link the page-landing stats with the database via a simple (alright, quite complicated) SQL script that always ensures that the page on any given topic with the most page-hits is automatically positioned at the primary landing address. In the case of Plymouth the UK city might occupy pole-position until the run up to Thanksgiving when it would automatically make way for the colony. It would be more democratic and, as it completely removes the stranglehold that meaning, accuracy and relevance have over the positioning of Wikipedia pages, might save us having to fill page after page with this sort of debate. What do you think? Blakkandekka (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good headache cure! Jolly Ω Janner 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyday you'd have to find where the subjects you watch have been moved to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Page views from Feb 2009

I picked February of 2009 because that's a month someone opposed to the move picked above and avoids the Thanksgiving temporal issue some are concerned with.

Okay, let's consider only the items on Plymouth (disambiguation) that have more than 1,000 views for this month, and whose most common name is obviously "Plymouth" (that is, I'm ignoring Plymouth Colony because its most common name is arguably not just "Plymouth" but "Plymouth Colony").

Plymouth has been viewed 29371 times in 200902.
Plymouth,_Massachusetts has been viewed 10233 times in 200902.
Plymouth_(automobile) has been viewed 11421 times in 200902.
Plymouth,_Montserrat has been viewed 3949 times in 200902.

Also:

Plymouth_(disambiguation) has been viewed 2342 times in 200902.

The city in Devon, England clearly has the most page views, almost 30,000, but that has to include some unknown number of misdirects because it is at Plymouth. That is, anyone looking for some other Plymouth who types in "Plymouth" and clicks on Go (or googles for Plymouth and clicks on the first hit in Wikipedia) will be taken, incorrectly, to that page, thus artificially boosting its page view count. There is no way of knowing how many of those page view counts at Plymouth are incorrect, but it must be at least 10% and could be 50% or more. Thus we cannot determine if someone entering "Plymouth" in the Search box is much more likely to be looking for the city in Devon, England than another topic named Plymouth, or that someone like that is more likely to be looking for that city than any of the other topics combined (the criteria specified at [{WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]])

We have to move this article away from Plymouth, such as has been proposed here, and then look at the page view counts again, to make this determination. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Table of article hits

Month	October	November	December	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	Total
Plymouth, MA	18,963	17,570	11,020	9,634	8,264	11,257	14,460	14,226	9,139	9,686	16,888	21,330	162,437
Plymouth (car)	13,285	12,529	11,665	13,422	12,820	14,234	14,389	14,230	11,718	13,151	20,637	18,463	170,543
Plymouth	31,526	30,169	24,472	26,940	23,699	32,951	33,866	35,713	22,972	28,877	46,613	49,896	387,694
MA and car combined	32,248	30,099	22,685	23,056	21,084	25,491	28,849	28,456	20,857	22,837	37,525	39,793	332,980
Total	63,774	60,268	47,157	49,996	44,783	58,442	62,715	64,169	43,829	51,714	84,138	89,689	720,674
City as % of total	49	50	52	54	53	56	54	56	52	56	55	56	54

These stats are flawed since you didn't include Plymouth Colony. It's reasonable to assume someone looking for it may just type in "Plymouth" and expect to see a list of Plymouths, both historic and current. DC T•C 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, including Plymouth Colony would be flawed as that would imply that everybody refers to it as "Plymouth". Jolly Ω Janner 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Or because it doesn't fit your POV. Here's the table with Plymouth Colony included.::DC T•C 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have always referred to the Colony as "Plymouth". I never knew it even had "Colony" appended to its title until this discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stats with Plymouth Colony included

Month	October	November	December	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	Total
Plymouth, MA	18,963	17,570	11,020	9,634	8,264	11,257	14,460	14,226	9,139	9,686	16,888	21,330	162,437
Plymouth (car)	13,285	12,529	11,665	13,422	12,820	14,234	14,389	14,230	11,718	13,151	20,637	18,463	170,543
Plymouth Colony	82,632	59,154	31,892	23,148	20,230	22,422	22,915	20,847	13,403	19,208	32,951	64,603	392,558
Plymouth (UK)	31,526	30,169	24,472	26,940	23,699	32,951	33,866	35,713	22,972	28,877	46,613	49,896	387,694
Total	146,406	119,422	79,049	73,144	65,013	80,864	85,630	85,016	57,232	117,809	84,665	154,292	1,113,232
UK as % of total	21	25	30	36	35	40	39	41	39	40	40	35	35

DC T•C 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The huge spike in October rather than November is a little surprising. Thanksgiving is in November, right? Jolly Ω Janner 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

October spike is the result of being the featured. The spike in traffic affects related articles too (including both the English and Massachusetts Plymouths). It should also be discounted for primary topic purposes - we know how the additional traffic got here and its not through searching.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that when I posted it. DC T•C 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair enough. There's also a few spikes in there caused by other main page links (through WP:SA), but they "balance" out in long run. However, I would say it also is an indication that basic reading of the traffic stats is flawed more fundamentally. Simply counting up page hits assumes "reader wants Plymouth Colony" and "reader wants Plymouth, Massachusetts" are independent events. The Colony got an additional ~37K hits when it was featured whilst the MA town got an additional 4.5K. That may indicate ~12% of readers of the Colony article immediately go on to read about the modern town via wikilinks.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced Plymouth Colony is known as "Plymouth" in the US. I assume that the place the Pilgrims landed and had their Thanksgiving = "Plymouth" to Americans. That's the settlement of Plymouth, Massachusetts, which was an integral part of Plymouth Colony. Plymouth Colony is going to be referred to as such eg in comparison to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Plymouth, the town, and Plymouth, the colony, have heavy historical overlap and that early history - the bit I assume most readers want - is better covered in the Colony article. Both those articles, and readers (those grade school kids) may be better served by splitting that part off into its own article but tnat's not really relevant here.--Nilf anion (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again Plymouth Colony should not be in this debate because its official name is not just Plymouth if someone wants Plymouth Colony they should type Plymouth Colony because that's the settlements name! If someone wants Corby Glen they will type Corby Glen instead of Corby because Corby Glen is the name and Corby is not Corby Glen!Likelife (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that absolutely no one who's unfamiliar with our archane naming guidelines would use Plymouth to refer to the colony? DC T•C 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it hasn't been shown that it is common to use "Plymouth" to refer to the colony (and if it was I would expect to see that in the article, especially as it's featured). Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The name is Plymouth Colony if they put the wrong place in the search bar i.e. 'Plymouth' then, that's their fault no matter what the naming guidelines are. People do not need to be spoon fed - how do you think people find places on other websites or Google Earth? Likelife (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I typed both New and York into the search box - the first one took me to some DAB page that didn't even list the city, and the second one took me to some English village nobody has ever heard of. Shouldn't we redirect them to New York?* Seriously now, Plymouth Colony is a different page and topic name - I don't see why we're including it here. If we were only considering the English city and the US colony (if the cars and city in MA didn't exist), would we even be having this discussion? *(Oh dear, there's a big renaming discussion there too!) GyroMagician (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No one calls New York "New" or "York". The same cannot be said for Plymouth Colony. Powers ^T 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

NB when you type "New" into the search box, without hitting enter, the first suggestion is New York City... Also, when typing "Plymouth", Plymouth Colony is one of the suggestions in the visible list. Jolly Ω Janner 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ironic GyroMagician... Do I take this as either you opposing every move with no attention to the merit, or as total hypocrisy? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point? And yes, I was making one. The irony was deliberate. GyroMagician (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you even discussing this here?! This is the kind of thing that belongs on user talk pages or maybe at Talk:York. Jolly Ω Janner 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that Plymouth Colony is a different name to Plymouth. Plymouth Colony may be abbreviated to Plymouth, but that is not it's full name, unlike the towns named Plymouth. Sorry for choosing a confusing example, I can see that wasn't entirely helpful. GyroMagician (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My question was aimed at ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ. Jolly Ω Janner 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Because these moves are all interconnected, because I want to understand the motives behind peoples decisions, and because I think this is pure and simply a bunch of British users getting offended at the idea that THEIR particular variant of a city isn't primary topic, and so they are coming here en masse and opposing, without putting any thought into it, because it's taken personally as some kind of US versus Britain crap. This is retarted - If Lincoln is split as it is, so should many of these other topics. But nope, no primary topic for Lincoln (unless its the British hamlet). Plymouth, definitely, definitely this little place that 50% of the English speaking world has never heard of, is undoubtedly the primary topic. I really hope that the admin that comes in is very apt at dealing with regional based arguments. Face it, that is the bread and butter of this argument. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Floydian, I'm sure that any closing admin will ignore poor, bias arguements like the click of a finger and look at the proper arguements put forward by users opposing or supporting the move. I would advise you and everyone else to take the same aprotion. If you have any problems with what particular users are doing over several articles take it up on their talk page or a RfC etc. It makes a closing admin's job harder if they see us squabbling about countries amongst users on this page. Jolly Ω Janner 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Challenge

Can anyone show me an example of a primary topic with:

About as many other uses of its name as is listed at Plymouth (disambiguation), and
Where at least one of the other uses has page view counts as high as Plymouth (automobile) or Plymouth, Massachusetts? --01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)

Off-hand I only know of one where the primary topic has about the same hits, if not less, as the other use: Modbury. Only has one other link for it, though. Jolly Ω Janner 02:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we're more lax with primary topic criteria when there is one other alternative because it's just one extra click to get to it whether via hatnote or dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Standard (disambiguation), with stats of: Standard: 22,727 - Standard Oil: 34,493 - Standard operating procedure: 38,438 and there are a couple of others hovering around the 10-15k mark. Yay! What do I win? :) Zangar (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, the primary topic is the 54th link on the dab page! That's amazing. And messed up. Powers ^T 14:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the numbers are automatically going to be jaded for a couple reasons:

There are over 200 different places (not just the 54 on the dab page), things or people that relate to Plymouth.
Although some users are looking for the town in England, many are not (and there's really know way to know how many are which for sure). --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Prepare yourself

Given that Cambridge seems to have been disambuguated in a 4am dawn raid in mid-discussion, despite there being no competing brand-names, biographies or legitimate geographical alternatives, regular users of this page might like to get ready to edit their bookmarks. These discussions don't seem to controversial enough either. Blakkandekka (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit. It seems that this is being dealt with through the appropriate channels. Apologies for the unwarranted alarmist tone of the above. Blakkandekka (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I really pity the admin who wades into this closing. He'll really earn his pay. DC T•C 03:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Article move to Plymouth, England

I think this article needs to move to Plymouth, England an the "Plymouth" article name should be the Plymouth (disambiguation). There are several "Plymouths" that are more well known than this one. I would do it myself but this article is locked and only an administrator can do it so I am leaving a message here. --Kumioko (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm... Look up at the extensive discussion above and participate there?--Nilf anion (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry didnt see that. Someone left a note on the WP:United States talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the move. My comments are above. --Kumioko (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The stats

I want to point out that the "Stats" numbers are completely garbage because as I have stated "Plymouth" is of course automatically going to have the highest hits because people looking for one of the other 200+ things named for plymouth are likely to try here first before they proceed to what they were really looking for. It may very well be that the majority are looking for Plymouth, England (although I doubt it) but as long as it is sitting in the location were most users would assume to be a disambiguation page we may never know. -Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst that is true to an extent, please remember that there were only 2 other Plymouths linked from this page - the MA town and the disambiguation page. If you assume all traffic to those pages came from this page and are the result of misdirected readers, then in September that's 21,000 + 2,000 (which is much less than 50,000). In the (extremely unlikely) worst case that implies the majority of traffic to this page wanted this page.

Also, no-one looking for say the Plymouth Barracuda will look for plain "Plymouth". Judging from its article, they may look for "Barracuda", "Cuda" or "Plymouth Barracuda" - but they won't use "Plymouth" to find out about that specific car. There are lots of things called Plymouth which may end up with people coming here inappropriately (all the towns for a start), but just because it has the word Plymouth in its name means a search for Plymouth will bring them here incorrectly - it has to actually be "Plymouth" in the mind of the searcher.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering most Americans are aware of Plymouth Colony etc, any Americans searching for a different Plymouth, e.g. Plymouth, Ohio, would most likely search for that title. Jolly Ω Janner 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mostly true and good points but if they typed in Plymouth in the search this one is going to be the first that comes up and as I mentioned many likely thought it was a dab page cause its such a general name. I didnt mean to imply that they all came here first but I think a large chuck did. --Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through literally thousands of incoming links (to Plymouth) and corrected the ones that were incorrect, I can attest to that at least 95% of them were meant for the car brand. Of the remainder, nearly all were meant for Plymouth, MA and one was for Plymouth, OH. None were for the colony, and none for any other Plymouth vehicles. I would imagine that users who end up here at Plymouth, Devon in error do so in similar proportions. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What that says to me is that the wiki-editor-pool are more likely to make a mistake than the wiki-user pool. The assumed correlation would only be true if the majority of incoming hits were from wikilinks as opposed to external sources. Is there anyway of breaking down the sources of the hits? Fmph (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr.choppers, for ploughing through all those links. I made a half-hearted attempt at it a week or so ago and only found two - one for a redlink movie and one for Plymouth, Mass. Looking at your contribs, it doesn't look like you found all that many either, maybe 20? - did you keep a count? At least something good that wouldn't have been done otherwise has come out of this muddle. —SMALL JIM 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To Fmph - no, as far as I know, there's no way of breaking down the sources of the hits (to us mere editors anyway), and since the criterion for awarding primary topic status only applies "when a reader enters that term in the Search box", that's the reason for all the arguments based on hits being easily refutable. If long-winded discussions like this one continue to crop up, it would seem like a good cause to review the primary topic criteria. I suggested an alternative, more easily determinable, criterion (breadth of relevance) in my !vote above. —SMALL JIM 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation: CONSENSUS

Floydian, GyroMagician is perfectly correct in his assumptions. Please now consider dropping the heated nationalist tones, and discussing the articles and not the editor. The Brits didn't start any of this - you did with your renaming campaign across the board, and you lost.

There will be no need for an admin to close this, for one thing it's not a formal RfC, and anyone who can count can see a clear consensus. Attempts to prolong this after a clear consensus has been reached in the hope of overthrowing it are WP:POINT, and WP:DISRUPT.

Result:

Oppose: 25 (of which 2 are Strong Oppose)
Support: 10

The Plymouth in Devon, England has primacy by consensus.

--Kudpung (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either users have been nationalist or disruptive in their intentions and accusing them of doing so is only being disruptive (oh the irony). Also, votes are not the way to define consensus, unless it's a snowball case, which this isn't. Jolly Ω Janner 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jolly there have been nationalistic comments made in various places throughout this campaign that has involved the proposed renaming of several UK cities, with comments on the various article talk pages and various user talk pages.

The above is not a close - I am not to be confused with the Good Faith non-admin closures attempted by people on he Cambridge discussion, a,d which backfired royally. This is a tally of the !votes, upon which a consensus read from the additional comments will almost certainly confirm the !vote count. It is essential that an uninvolved admin make an independent review and a formal closure.--Kudpung (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. Decisions are made. If one person has a better argument; it doesn't matter if a hundred people vote against him. The smaller side has the better argument in this case Purple backpack89 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That last sentence is your opinion, however. Jolly Ω Janner 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.