Talk:Worcester, England/Archive 4

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

Pronunciation 4

Editors can't agree how to use MOS to transcribe the name of this city. 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution seems to be needed here: a user appears to be gaming the system by using the Manual of Style as a means of thwarting consensus. Metabaronic (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The MOS is the consensus. We're not debating how the word is pronounced, which would be relevant only here, but how to transcribe it, which is relevant to the entire project. We can't have little balkanized walled gardens all over the place, but need a single standard, or our readers will be completely lost. That's what the MOS is for. If the idea of having both universal and local pronunciations is unacceptable, that needs to be taken up with WP as a whole. kwami (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've requested comment from other editors because everybody's had their say and nothing's moved on one way or another. Your interpretation of the MOS is inconsistent with mine and with others, but I'm not claiming my interpretation is correct, I'm asking for advice from experienced editors. If you're correct they'll likely support your view and we can archive this debate and move on.Metabaronic (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. kwami (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes during a discussion, a small group of contributors might collectively pretend to a majority consensus to negate a minority opinion and try to outmaneuvering the minority into WP:CIVIL, or simply force them to leave the discussion in dismay. Those of us who have been around for a while probably know just how much we can taunt each other without recrimination, but may be committed to an agenda with a personal, or group conviction that goes beyond rational discussion, and express themselves in a combative manner. Enthusiasm is fine if you are right, but caring more about your cause than objective editing is counter productive to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many attempts to address such issues often end in an appeal to ANI or Arbcom, which is sometimes a waste of time because those with an agenda are likely to do whatever they can to prevent the plaintif from getting a fair hearing.--Kudpung (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This RfC wasn't listed on the appropriate pages. This isn't a question about how to re-write a policy; it's about how to apply existing advice to a specific subject. Please feel free to revise my 'question' (or to remove the RfC tag manually if you no longer need outside comments). I also suggest that you provide an explicit description, including diffs and sources that support your view, of what you need help with. Vague statements that "we need some help" are usually ignored by the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we all agree on how to pronounce the name. The question is how to transcribe it. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, its more complex than that. This is a specific case where the argument from kwami is that to make specific changes requires a change to the MOS, while others disagree. This is therefore a question about the application of MOS and the need to change it if it prevents common-sense and consensus from prevailing in this case. It does not directly relate to how local residents pronounce things, but about the general, non-local transcription overriding the local one.
As for me vaguely saying "we need help": the fact that I'm new to using RfC and that I followed the process as described is the reason for this. All the evidence re:differences is contained within this talkpage.Metabaronic (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I might have requested it under 'policy' as well, so you did the right thing. They've now responded saying that it's a narrower issue than that, which IMO is also reasonable.
But I don't understand what you mean by 'common sense'. We currently list both the local and the international pronunciation. If you assume that the reader can't convert between the two (I assume they can, but no matter), what could be more common-sensical than listing both? — kwami (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC: WP:IPA for English is quite clear; the transcription should be /ˈwʊstər/. The additional comment that locals and most other people from England pronounce it [ˈwʊstə] is all right, I suppose, but completely unnecessary since WP:IPA for English already says that non-rhotic speakers don't pronounce /r/ at the end of a syllable. It was decided a long time ago to use a pan-dialectal transcription of English names, because locals don't have a monopoly on the pronunciation of their town's name. Rhotic speakers are also allowed to talk about Worcester, and when they do, they pronounce it /ˈwʊstər/, and the non-rhotic pronunciation is easily derivable from that transcription. Likewise (as Kwami mentioned above), non-yod droppers are also allowed to talk about New Mexico, and when they do, they pronounce it /njuː ˈmɛksɪkoʊ/, and the yod-dropping pronunciation (which includes the pronunciation of New Mexico locals) is easily derivable from the transcription. An RP-speaking friend of mine once told me she was going to be visiting the U.S., specifically "Illinois and Indi[ɑː]na". That made me laugh out loud, but if that's the standard RP pronunciation of Indiana, then it's a legitimate alternative, even if no Hoosier would be caught dead pronouncing it that way. And it's the same with Worcester: we use a transcription that reflects everyone's pronunciation (or at least, that all standard pronunciations can be derived from), not just locals' pronunciation. +Angr 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So we're discussing the general pronunciation. WP:IPA states that "English pronunciation in Wikipedia should be transcribed in such a way that its interpretation does not depend on the reader's accent". If this is, as you suggest, rhotic vs. non-rhotic, then surely the convention should be that the rhotic transcription leads for geographical articles pertaining to where rhotic pronunciation is used (say, a town called Worcester in the American Midwest), while the non-rhotic transcription should lead where that isn't the case (say, a town called Worcester in England). By using a rhotic transcription first you are saying that the general pronunciation is rhotic, and therefore giving that precedence over the equally valid non-rhotic pronunciation. I'm struggling to find any statement that rhotic always takes precedence over non-rhotic when determining general pronunciation. I think the definition of local is also at issue, as the non-rhotic English covers all of England. I'm beginning to see why the question is perhaps wider than this article alone, and why it might need a rethink at MOS level. Metabaronic (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
General takes precedence over specific. It's not giving rhotic pronunciations precedence, because it's not a rhotic pronunciation! The vowels, for example, are non-rhotic. An American could just as easily complain that it's a British pronunciation, but it's not that either: It's a melange that covers everyone (except unfortunately the Scots). The pronunciation that everyone uses, local and non-local, is given first, and the narrower transcription covering just the local is given second. I suppose we could word it "locally X; generally Y", but that strikes me as unnecessarily awkward.
It's the same thing with common nouns. If one pronunciation is used in both the US and the UK, and a second in only the US or the UK, we give the general pronunciation first, and then say "US also Y" or "UK also Z".
Besides, in this case, if you speak non-rhotic but conservative RP, you have an /r/ at the end anyway, so what, we give non-RP non-rhotic first, then RP non-rhotic, then rhotic? — kwami (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First a question from an uninvolved editor. Is this dispute simply about whether the IPA pronumciation should be wʊstər or wʊstə? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. The editor above just wanted the local pronunciation placed ahead of the generic one, which is a minor point, but the most prolific objector (the one I'm "abusing") objects to using a generic pronunciation provided for by MOS:Pronunciation at all, saying that national pronunciations (in this case meaning England rather than the UK) should be given instead. Every time I've tried to interpret his words he's said I've twisted them, but it would appear that he wants England-English pronunciations (and AFAICT not local ones) for English place names. But he objects to using Received Pronunciation as described by the British Library (with linking R), and wants instead his own take on RP (no linking R). He may very well be right and the British Library wrong about that point, and John Wells backs him up that younger generations lack linking R after many vowels (Wells himself retains it in a few cases), but again, that may be "twisting" his words. I've also found recent claims that the lack of linking R is still stigmatized in RP, so there's that problem as well. This wouldn't be an issue for, say, "York", for which our general pronunciation would record an R but which has no linking R, but he says that's irrelevant, so it would seem to be two arguments: whether or not RP has linking R, and whether we should use RP rather than our diaphonic transcription for English place names. If the British Library is correct, the results of the latter would be the same. I once thought he didn't want to indicate linking R even where it occurs for the sake of students of English, but he said that's not his primary concern.
He put up a request for resolution/discussion on the general point on another page, but I don't see a link here. I'll have to look for it. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now read some of the background on this subject and it is a difficult problem - how to give pronunciations for a language that is spoken with many different accents in several countries. My initial thoughts are
All calm down and try to avoid this becoming a personal battle or a UK vs US issue.
I am not personally convinced that trying to impose a common 'neutral' accent in WP is desirable or even possible. It is not what is done with British English and American English. I would suggest that it takes more than a handful of editors to make such an important policy decision. Even if this policy is agreed, I think there should be an exception for personal and geographic names. Telling people how to pronounce their own name of the name of the place that they live in is bound to cause trouble.
My dictionary (Collins) gives the pronunciation wʊstə. It states that it gives pronunciations 'common in educated speech'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A little history on the convention: We used to have separate US and UK pronunciations for every common word. Then people started adding Australian pronunciations too. We could see that this was unsustainable, since we aren't supposed to be a dictionary, and so decided to merge them into a single convention, much like what Webster's does for US dialects. What we ended up with was to use RP vowels but to retain /r/ and /h/. (Funny, no-one ever complains about us transcribing /h/ for place names in aitch-dropping areas, just /r/ in ar-dropping areas.) This has been widely accepted over several years.
The question here is narrower: should this be applied to personal and place names. The MOS specifies that local names can of course also be added (they are very often of interest). That's what we have here: the diaphonic pronunciation followed by the local one. This convention is used on hundreds of articles. Even when the local pronunciation is radically different from the general pronunciation, no-one complains about having both, unless an ar is dropped. Comments from several editors who have made this complaint suggest to me that the reason is paranoia about American cultural imperialism and a simplistic idea that rhotic = US, and has little to do with the name itself.
Also, we are not telling people how to pronounce the name of their own town. We often specify the local pronunciation. Even if we don't, WP:IPA for English, which the transcription links to, directs the reader to ignore distinctions they don't make: drop /r/ and /h/ if you don't pronounce them (as in much of England), merge /ɑ:/, /ɒ/, and /ɔ:/ if you don't distinguish them (as in much of Canada and the US), etc.
BTW, many dictionaries do not bother with linking ar, so without reading the intro, I can't tell if your Collins is saying that there is no linking ar in this name. Other UK dictionaries do have the ar, as was cited above. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. This issue is clearly much wider than just Worcester so I suggest continuing at WP:IPA for English where I have started a new section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's what that was! Kudpung's already started a broader discussion, I just forget where. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly is this moving to? As the editor in question, I asked for resolution because, as a relatively new wikipedian not specialising in linguistics, the quoting of a rule to end an argument in the face of consensual opposition felt like gaming the rules. We were all going in circles and I for one couldn't find a clear statement that supported kwami's interpretation of the MOS, nor understand how it overrode 1. consensus within the specific article, and 2. how common sense applied here (common sense to me being that pronunciation/transcription used should defer to the dialect of origin first, and list any broad or widely used variations second). Metabaronic (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I no longer follow you. If you want to put the local pronunciation first, fine. That's a minor detail of style. There is nothing in the MOS that addresses it, just convention from other articles that are organized the other way.
But that's not what the debate has been about. The real objection seems to be that the consensus on using a general transcription for place names should not apply to places in England. That's a broader issue than this one article, and what Kudpung finally took elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
kwami, you have said 'The real objection seems to be that the consensus on using a general transcription for place names should not apply to places in England'. That is not my objection. My objection is to the whole concept of general transcription, which I have described in detail on the the IPA page. This objection applies equally to all countries since no country used the pronunciation that you propose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In a thread this long where you are debating with a number of people its easy to end up arguing about different things. Its certainly where I was coming from. I argued about the general pronunciation because I feel its placement within the article is implies it is the most common form of pronunciation, which I dispute. Hence my position is simple, that it should be changed or moved. Metabaronic (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I came here is response to the RFC and if you want my opinion on the IPA pronunciation here I am pleased to give it below.
Local IPA pronunciation first this is the only logical way for geographic names.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that makes sense to me. Metabaronic (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it does :) It's what several editors have been trying to explain to the editors of the various Wikipedia IPA articles since December, but our comments have been met with intransigence, and very complicated linguistic explanations that may of us especially those who might not be linguists, can't understand. It seems to be fairly clear however, that the system in use is contrived, and does not accurately reflect reality. By local, however, we probably mean national from an Americam point of view, in order to avoid thinking that we mean a vernacular that is restricted to a very small area of a town or district.--Kudpung (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to reiterate from a similar discussion eleswhere, where the comment went largely unaddressed:

Most likely in the United Kingdom they would mean:

  • local = in the city, in the immediate area surrounding the city, and possibly the rest of the county.
  • regional = the rest of a county that covers a particularly large geographic area, and its neighbouring counties.
  • national = the country where the language is spoken. In this case, England, where a neutral RP is more commonplace and/or widespread than say, for example, Scotland and Wales where their national accents a re the accepted educated accents of the majority.
  • global = worldwide, or in the case of this issue, the regions of the world where whre the two main versions (AE & BE) predominate, such as for example, The Philippines where AE predominates, and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent where BE predominates.

--Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Even within England, there's no such thing as one monolithic local pronunciation. I know two people from Exeter: one of them is a rhotic speaker who calls it [ˈɛksətər], the other is a non-rhotic speaker who calls it [ˈɛksətə]. But they're both locals, so who's to say which is the "local pronunciation"? I'm sure the same is true for other places: I have no doubt that some Hackney locals call it [hækni] and others [ʔækni], and that some Southwark locals call it [ˈsʌðək] and others [ˈsʌvək]. And it's no different in the U.S.: some New Jerseyites call their state [nu ˈdʒɜrzi] and others {{IPA|[nu ˈdʒɜɪzi]. The point of these pronunciation guides is to let people who aren't already familiar with the place under discussion know how to pronounce it, regardless of what their own accent is. Such people are not helped by the "local pronunciation first" mentality; after all, locals don't need to be told how to pronounce the name. +Angr 08:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Any chance all you pronunciation geeks could please toddle off to Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English to finalise this and let the rest of us concentrate on improving the article? If this is how much fuss you can make of Worcester, then goodness only knows what you lot would make of Shrewsbury. I mean, really, how many casual Wikipedia visitors can actually understand IPA anyway? Bugger all, I expect. It's pronounced three or four different ways depending on where you live. Nobody's addressed the West Country accent ("Wusturr"), which starts a mere 20-30 miles south in Gloucestershire, but do us Tewkesbury residents complain? No. As my Russian colleague said, "In English you write 'Manchester' but it's pronounced 'Liverpool'" The key point is: so long as you pronounce Worcester with only two syllables rather than three, it doesn't much matter. Have the intro para list the local (city) and national (RP), then if you're absolutely desperate to be a pedant, split out the alternatives in a Pronunciation subsection and do your wittering on Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English. KTHXBAI Andrew Oakley (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have done! In order to try to get them to see sense. Their crazy mid-Atlantic, IPA-based, diaphonemic, transcription scheme is going to stir up trouble wherever it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
But considerably less trouble than any possible alternative, except omitting pronunciation information from Wikipedia altogether. +Angr 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not so. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, wʊstə is likely to be misleading to rhotic speakers, since they will see the ars removed and assume that this is simply the non-rhotic pronunciation, and then put both ars back in, to give wərstər, which is wrong in any dialect.--Atemperman (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful for editors to think about this in terms of whether specifying pronunciation for a word is content like the rest of the content in the main text, or is somewhat meta, in that it is an instruction to the reader on how to pronounce the word. That is, whether "Worcester [wʊstə(r)]" is more like "Worcester is a city and county town of Worcestershire, in the West Midlands of England.", or more like "This article is about the city of Worcester in England. For the city in Massachusetts, see Worcester, Massachusetts." I personally think that the current status of the page is fine; right now it does both. --Atemperman (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A point that is being missed here by several recent contributors , and it probably comes from not having read the entire discussion, is that it is not a list of all the possible UK pronunciations that is being called for. People are requesting that the crazy mid-Atlantic, IPA-based, diaphonemic, transcription scheme be changed for something that causes less confusion. While BE and AE may have a great many accents, there is one clear, major distinction: American English in all its forms is undeniably American, and BE in all its forms, is undeniably British, and that's where Wikipedia articles need to provide a more accurate guide. It appears also (see above) that the word local has different connotations on each side of the pond.--Kudpung (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
People who dislike this system either do so because they don't understand it (and thereby find it confusing) or because they disagree with it on theoretical or political grounds. In the discussion above, I see Hallucegenia and GyroMagician (and possibly Martin Hogbin) as arguing against the system because of the former reason. Kudpung, on the other hand, disagrees with because of the latter reason. If I'm correct about Hallucegenia and Gyromagician, I wonder if they have read "understanding the key" at WP:IPAEN either before or after their comments here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Aeusoes, before deciding for me what my objections to the system are, you might like to to check in a dictionary the difference between political and geographical - nothing is to be achieved in this discussion by misinterpreting or misrepresenting other peoples' contributions in order to sway opinion. It might be more politically correct to discuss the topic and not the editors: (WP:TPG). The IPA exists as a recognised international language tool, it's not the role of the Wikip)edia to redesign it and write another set of instructions for its use. ([[WP:NOTHOW]); To do so would be to confuse those who already have a working knowledge of it. in another discussioin I have also already cited what leadiing published linguists think of the value of a one-size-fits-all, diaphonemic transcription scheme as a pronunciation guide;--Kudpung (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no point to your parsing. You're obviously not confused about the system itself. You disagree with it because of option 2. If it's not political, then it's theoretical.
That I've brought up other editors or that I've made a generalization about users in general is not unbecoming. I'm trying to address concerns that people have brought up, including your own that it's confusing to some people. I will not cease this line of inquiry because you don't like my approach. If you'd like, you can report me for it.
It is well established that the IPA can be used for polydialectal transcription. Wells didn't think all dialects could be accomodated for, but Daniel Jones, George Trager, Henry Smith, Hans Kurath, and Raven McDavid felt that polydialectal (if not pandialectal) transcriptions were possible. In another discussion I have already detailed why WP:NOTHOW doesn't apply. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've read WP:IPAEN, and have to re-read it most times I want to use a WP IPA transcription. Funnily enough, I actually do a little research before commenting on a debate. I'm confused primarily by the usage of IPA for a 'generic' English pronunciation. I had always understood the IPA as being designed to transcribe the actual sounds of a word, i.e. phonetically rather than diaphonemically, taking the name as my first clue (but as I keep saying, I'm no expert). My 'not understanding it' is a little deeper than 'not bothering to read the instructions'. But I really don't care any more. I've found this to be the single most frustrating Wikipedia 'discussion' I've every become involved in. For example, see above where we were accused of creating a walled garden because we asked how this transcription works. Or where Hallucegenia quotes from six different dictionaries, clearly demonstrating a confused picture, and asks others to add more refs if they have them. Rather than trying to add any clarity to the discussion, kwami then follows up with a 'See, I'm right' while ignoring half the entries. I'm tired of seeing discussions summarized with so much bias as to completely change the meaning. So I don't want to play any more. I'm off to go-and-do-something-less-boring-instead. I hope you all fix it. GyroMagician (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason I've asked if you've read it is because it's possible that the instructions aren't clear enough. If we can explain it better from the get-go, then less people will be confused in the long run. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"I had always understood the IPA as being designed to transcribe the actual sounds of a word, i.e. phonetically rather than diaphonemically". Unfortunately, you aren't the only person who has this misconception. The IPA is a phonetic alphabet in the sense that each letter stands for a sound - but "sound" is broadly defined. It can be - and always has been - used to transcribe phones, phonemes, diaphonemes, archiphonemes, etc., for as long as it's been around. Of course there are disadvantages to a diaphonemic transcription, but the consensus reached years ago at WP:IPA for English was that the advantages (e.g., allowing us to give just one phonemic transcription in most articles rather than half a dozen or more, thus allowing the lead sentence to get to the point quicker) outweigh the disadvantages (e.g., that the transcription doesn't exactly reflect anyone's actual pronunciation, and of course that speakers of nonrhotic varieties of English have to suffer the indignity of seeing place names from home transcribed with /r/s at the ends of syllables). This has all been discussed and hashed out before. If those of us on the pro–status quo side of the argument (e.g. Kwami, Aeusoes, and me) are starting to sound snippy, it's because we've heard all of these arguments before: neither Kudpung nor Martin Hogbin is saying anything that hasn't been said a hundred times already or that wasn't taken into consideration when consensus on WP:IPA-EN was hammered out. I myself was opposed to diaphonemic transcription 2½ years ago, but I've since come to see it's the only realistic option. If we don't use diaphonemic transcription we have only two options: (1) No pronunciation information at all; or (2) Entries that list the pronunciation in RP, General American, Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, Scottish Standard English, Singaporean English, South African English, and Welsh English at a minimum. Whatever the disadvantages of the diaphonemic option, I consider it far preferable to either of those options. +Angr 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
A thorough read of the discussion that has been precipitously archived will reveal that providing simply TWO IPA transcriptions: AE & BE ,will address the requirements of the vast majorityf English speakers; To suggest we should have more would be counter productive, and has never been up for debate;--Kudpung (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Here it ius again: While BE and AE may have a great many accents, there is one clear, major distinction: American English in all its forms is undeniably American, and BE in all its forms, is undeniably British, and that's where Wikipedia articles need to provide a more accurate guide. --Kudpung (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Aeusoes, I have already stated more than once that my objection is purely geographical; I cannot find any semantic similarities between geographical and theoretical; I cannot see the object in constantly telling readers that what I am saying is not what I am saying; Please let them read my comments themselves, allow them to draw their own conclusions, and stick to policy: discuss the topic and not the editors; Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On theoretical grounds, you believe that dialects from multiple geographic areas can't be reconciled into one transcription. Pick any adjective you want, I suppose. The point is that you're not confused. This isn't an attack, so it's okay.
You are right that the most significant difference (rhotic vs. nonrhotic) is best exemplified by AE vs. BE and, before the diaphonemic system was used, we generally only had these two (unless I remember wrong). But by what criteria do we draw the line at these two? Part of the trigger for the diaphonemic transcription was when an Australian IPA template was created and no one could come up with a reasonable NPOV justification for excluding them (or, slippery slope thinking would argue, anyone else wishing representation), so there was indeed more than just two up for debate. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I'm not confused, But you are still mistaken in trying to convince our readers that I am basing my opinion on theoretical and/or political reasons. Nobody can dispute the isogloss especially when it is marked by a 4,000 mile wide pond. The differences between AE and BE are very evident, and represent very clearly the two vastly major main blocks of English. AUS English is far, far closer to BE than it ever was to AE, so whatever adjective you try to use to describe my opinion, it's all down to one basic, undeniable fact: geography - and if you take care to read everthing I have ever discussed on this topic, I have never inferred anything else. Politics? Well, I have expressed my amazement that Americans, especially those who have never been to Britain, seem to know more about BE and its local forms than the Brits themselves, and stipulate by some elusive consensus which form should be used to transliterate Worcester (UK). British Wikipedia readers are are not all linguists, some of them are just using the encyclopedia to look stuff up, and they claim the right to see their place names written phonetically in a form they already more or less understand, and not in some confusing form that has been hatched up by a 'consensus' of two non British Wikipedians two and a half years ago, and forces them to relearn the IPA from a contrived key.
This discussion is about improving the Wikipedia experience for its readers. Policy can change and can be changed. I support those views, and will continue to do battle for those non-linguists who are leaving the discussions in dismay. I suggest that this Worcester talk page is not the place to discuss issues that have site-wide implications; for that we have a current on-going discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English . --Kudpung (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; we should discuss it there. Any other editors wishing to contribute to this issue should do the same. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How many fire stations does Worcester have?

how many fire stations does worcester have? the worcester mass article says they got 10? i will try to find out thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.226.222 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, this is the main Worcester article - the one about the large ancient city in England. I think Worcester Mass is in America. Perhaps you could try looking HERE. --Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

This article has recently been brought into line with comparable others, such as Hereford, Gloucester, Lincoln and Canterbury, by using a view in its infobox rather than a coat of arms. The coat of arms image is captionless and raises more questions than it answers with its arcane Latin motto, whereas a photograph contains real information that cannot be conveyed by words alone, giving a visual impression of the town itself. The coat of arms can be used elsewhere or, by substituting the settlement infobox for the UK place infobox, both can be included. In either case, I think a view adds value and improves the consistency of articles about cities. Exok (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been brought in line with comparable others to include a city crest in the infobox. Just because a few people can't read Latin is no reason to remove it because they just don't like it. Here in the UK almost all city mottos (and those of all the good schools and universities) are in Latin, and sometimes even in other languages. Honi soit qui mal y pense. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Failing a reasoable explanation for the image, a modern skyline phopto of Worcester at File:Worcester.jpg with the copyright notice "this image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923", I am going to propose the file for deletion. This may have consequences for other articles that had been using the original image, a photocopy of Samuel Worcester from New Echota Historical Site, used with permission. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, long-time-no-see. As I guess you're aware, I realised something odd had happened with the upload of the Worcester image. This was nothing to do with Exok, who has kindly fixed the problem anyway. I like the idea of adding a photograph to the infobox - I find it far more informative than a coat-of-arms. As it happens, I think the replacement photo is much better (less dark) than the first. Now, rather than rattling copyright sabers and snarking about reading Latin, shall we try to welcome newcomers (to this article at least) and make some constructive comments? GyroMagician (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Worcester and English Interregnum

Somewhat technical, but in line with the dates given in the wiki article on the Interregnum (from execution of Charles I to return to England of his son), I have corrected its stated duration to eleven years and decided to state the battle of 1651 as 'cementing', rather than one that 'resulted in', the Interegnum - then two years old.Cloptonson (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect Issue

Worcester, UK has less than 1/2 the population of Worcester, MA. Why am I redirected here when I search for "Worcester" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.31.38 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC) A Comment by a suspected unregistered sock-puppet of an indefinitely-blocked sock-puppeteer. -- KC9TV 03:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. We could have a long discussion where we attempt to compare an apple to an orange. You will talk about current population, I will bring up significance in the English Civil War. We could argue about how one might compare two different cities with different histories on different continents. Or you could click the link in the very first line of the article, which takes you to the Worcester you were looking for. GyroMagician (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hive

I noticed that nothing is mentioned in this article (or anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I can tell) about the new building in Worcester - The Hive, despite the building being open throughout the summer. http://www.thehiveworcester.org/

I think that this should deserve a new section on the page since The Hive is a significant part of the city.

Although I'm a resident in the city itself, I can't create a section myself as I am too busy with other work in life.

Anyone else think The Hive should be mentioned?

195.195.201.47 (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


I note this is an old talk page but just want to update there is a paragraph referencing The Hive and also a direct Wikipedia page for The Hive

• BalchMike   ⋠talk⋡ 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done: I have tidied the input on The Hive in this article. • BalchMike   ⋠talk⋡ 00:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested 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.

No consensus to move. I see no likelihood that protracting this discussion further will result in a consensus, given that there is slightly more opposition than support after two full months of discussion. Although this is a discussion, not a vote, the weight of participation is not insignificant to determining whether a consensus exists. As to the arguments, we weigh several factors in determining the primacy of a topic, including both the likelihood that a reader is looking for that topic when they search for a term, and the relative historical importance of the various candidates, irrespective of their popularity. Historical importance is not some mystical incantation. With respect to a place, it can be determined by examining whether the balance of significant and well-discussed historical events associated with the name have occurred there. There is no doubt that such events have occurred in the English location. This may be a thin basis given the popularity of some other uses. However, because there is a legitimate basis for maintaining the status quo, and a lack of consensus supporting the proposed move, the conclusion of this discussion is that the page is not moved. bd2412 T 01:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

– The city in Massachusetts has nearly twice as many people. Age determining which meaning of a term gets priority is a good argument only if the newer meaning is less than a generation (30 years) old, and in this case the city in Massachusetts has existed since 1848. Relisted. Biblioworm 22:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Georgia guy (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Massachusetts city gets more views recently. Georgia guy (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Page views show that if a primary topic for Worcester exists, it's actually the Massachusetts city. That article has been viewed more than 47,000 times over the past 90 days. The English city has been viewed about 39,000 times in the same time frame. I see no logical reason why the lesser viewed article should remain at the base page name. -- Calidum 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and turn the base name into a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Worcester the city in England existed prior to the one in Massachusetts and the US city was named after the one in the UK. The English city is also, arguably far more notable historically than the US one. Wikipedia guidance in this case is 'A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term'. We should follow this guidance in this case. There is a clear and adequate link to the US city at the top of the page.Robynthehode (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Please read my reason for this requested move carefully. How old is the city in Massachusetts?? It has existed since 1848, making it 166 years old. Do you really think age should determine primary meanings of terms even if the younger term is 166 years old (as opposed to being less than 30 years old)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes I did read your reason carefully. My argument is age of the city is important in this case. Worcester (England) has a longer and more notable continued existence as a city than the one in the Massachusetts. This criterion is far more important than population or the number of page views. Page views might show popularity of the subject or the fact that there are about five times as many US citizens as UK citizens. But this does not give a subject notability or educational value.Robynthehode (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you really think age is a good argument to use regardless of how old the younger meaning is (in this case 166)?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I am making the argument that Worcester (England) should stay as the primary article because it is more notable? Age in my argument is not about arbitrary number of years of existence but the fact that during the years of Worcester's (England) existence there have been more notable events, people, structures etc that have been associated with this city in comparison to the Worcester in Massachusetts. This is the guidance given in Wikipedia as quoted in my first contribution above.Robynthehode (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
          • No, I'm not ignoring it at all. Your question is: Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I am making the argument that Worcester (England) should stay as the primary article because it is more notable? You're making the argument that Worcester (England) should stay as the primary topic because it is more notable according to how you view it, which in turn is because it is older; the city in Massachusetts is only 166 years old. Do you really see your argument as being as natural as it would have been if the city in Massachusetts first got its name like, 20 years ago?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - All stats indicate no clear primary topic. One being older is something to take into account, but can't overcome the population as well as the numbers. Our recentism standardss certainly don't apply here, as they aren't meant to compare things that are already hundreds of years old. And personal opinions about significance are completely trumped by the clear indication from page view stats that readers are not overwhelmingly looking for the UK city.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose Dude, 1848! That's like really, really old! — Well, it isn't. It's not even old for Massachusetts. My house is nearly that old, my village is much older.
    Maybe it's appropriate because Worcester, MA is a typical US mega-city that just dwarfs the whole of England, let alone a tiny town with a church like Worcester. Except that it isn't. Worcester, England, is about 100k population (which is pretty large for the UK) and Worcester, MA isn't even twice that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing has suggested that Worcester, England meets the criteria necessary to be the primary topic. Some points, such as Calidum's page view stats, show that it doesn't. Neither of the opposing arguments presented for the English one having enough long-term significance to qualify as primary on those grounds (it's a namesake, it's older) seem to hold much water to me. As for the argument that Worcester, Massachusetts was named after Worcester, England – Champagne is about the beverage, not the region in France it was named after, Boston is about the city in Massachusetts, not the town in Lincolnshire it was named after, and Sandwich is about the type of food, not the earl it was named after or the town in Kent associated with the earl's title. Those are just a few examples of a newer thing being named for an older thing, and yet, not only is the older not the primary topic, the newer is, which is further than anyone is asking for here. As for Worcester, England being older – check out Memphis. Then, because you aren't at the article on Memphis, Egypt, check out that one as well. Memphis, Egypt was founded over 5000 years ago, well earlier than Worcester, England. Memphis, Tennessee is not that much older than Worcester, Massachusetts (1819 vs. 1848). The idea that Worcester, England might be near the same level of historical significance as Memphis, Egypt is not an idea I see meeting with much agreement, and if "it's older" doesn't work for Memphis, I don't see how it works for Worcester. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Many contributors seem to be missing the point that when I mentioned that Worcester (England) is older than Worcester (Massachusetts) I did so in the context that during its longer existence it has had events, people, buildings etc that are more NOTABLE than Worcester (Massachusetts). This is a criterion that fits well with Wikipedia policy I stated earlier - namely 'A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term' - Egsan Bacon's support of the previous page view stats argument does not fit with any Wikipedia policy. The reasons for high page viewing can be many but it doesn't mean that the simple viewing numbers should be given undue weight in considering notability. I do take the point that articles about certain subjects can be more notable even if the older subject is the thing that was first named (as per the Champagne example above). But that argument only holds water on a case by case basis where evidence is provided to support or discount notability. The crux of this proposed move is whether Worcester (England) is more notable than Worcester (Masachusetts). I would strongly contend that it is and that the article should remain the same.Robynthehode (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Page view figures are inherently US-centric, as is this discussion. Worcester has been a fortified settlement since around 400 BC. It was a Roman city then an Anglo-Saxon stronghold. It has a great Norman and Gothic cathedral. It has been heavily involved in two civil wars and was the sometime headquarters of King Charles I and the site of his final defeat by the forces of the English parliament. There are far more English speaking people outside the US than in it and I have no doubt that most of them will never have heard of the American city while many will have learnt about English Worcester through English history.Charles (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. How are the page view figures US-centric?? Do you have less US-centric page view figures?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The majority of Wikipedia traffic is in the US so it is US-centric, as the tone of this thread confirms.Charles (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • See, I can understand this argument making sense when it is against moving a specific country's interest to a primary topic. But to argue that, when over half of the readers using the search term are intending to find a different page, there is a clear primary topic is just absurd. Do we want to make an effort to ensure a worldwide view? Of course! But what we're doing here is discounting the majority of the readers, not taking others into account. It's important not to keep things US-centric, but this is not a move to the primary topic, and we certainly shouldn't just get into a mindset of "it takes over 1000 American readers to have the value of 1 Barbadian."--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Nobody is suggesting 1000 to 1 ratios. I would never expect Boston, Lincolnshire to be primary topic over the great US state capital and historic seaport. That would be silly. Worcester, Massachusetts however is not a place that I as a well informed Brit have ever heard of. I suspect the same applies to hundreds of millions of English speakers in Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan etc. The search results reflect Wikipedia being US based rather than the relative fame or importance of the cities.Charles (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
          • There is also the point that if Worcester is moved it should be to Worcester, Worcestershire not Worcester, England.Charles (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the quintessential example for why the historical significance criteria should be removed from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is not helpful to send people to an article about the English city when they're seeking an article about the US city, or a sauce. ALL that should matter is what people are most likely seeking when entering the search term in question into the search field and clicking on GO. The minute you allow for any other consideration, including the vague and meaningless "historical significance", you're throwing the user under the bus and just creating a contentious situation for no good reason. --В²C ☎ 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The comments of Charlesdrakew and Born2cycle show precisely why these sort of issues arise. Being blind to the possibility that thousands or millions of non US people want to be directed to Worcester (England) rather than Worcester (Massachusetts) is a form of cultural arrogance. There are good reasons to keep the article as it is. Try providing a well argued position with evidence that is referenced (isn't that what we as editors do in writing articles?) rather than bemoaning the fact that not all links end up in US centred articles.Robynthehode (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, please. This is about numbers, period. Do we serve 40% and hinder 60%, or vice versa? This is about nothing else. And yeah, of course, because the majority of WP users happen to be from the US, those numbers are going to be skewed accordingly. Deal with it. --В²C ☎ 23:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Why is the sauce being brought into this discussion? No-one will expect to find the sauce just by entering 'Worcester', just as no-one expects to find the soup by entering tomato!--Ykraps (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Worcester (UK) seems to be more significant both historically and culturally than the alternatives (although perhaps the respective articles are underselling the other Worcesters). shellac (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Always support regional comma disambiguation for places as the standard reference work style of disambiguation that also happens to make all place names so much more recognizable as place names. There are no downside to disambiguating this. It will always be acknowledged as the oldest Worcester even if disambiguated. Worldwide, probably more people recognize the sauce. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No bearing on the move, but WP:UKPLACE prefers no regional comma. The 'regional comma' is a US thing. shellac (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • shellac, I don't understand. Halling, Kent and Lincoln, England are not standard formats? As seen in atlas indexes, and in normal text where it is not assumed that the reader is already aware of the region being discussed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • One does not need commas for Hereford, Oxford, Worcester, York, etc because they are the capital cities of their counties. York, Yorkshire looks a dumb as New York, New York -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, I get that. The level of region depends on the level of the town/city. Worcester is significant as an English city, to be disambiguated as "Worcester, England" for the international readership, it needing no disambiguation for anyone in England. Similarly, it would be York, England, in comma region format. New York, like London, is a city with strong global recognition. (The pertinent question to this RM is whether Worcester has sufficient global recognition) So, if we agree that "region" requires interpretation, and setting that aside, I don't understand why shellac says "WP:UKPLACE prefers no regional comma". It doesn't prefer parenthetical disambiguation over comma disambiguation to my reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Others here are strongly asserting that this is the most important, oldest, most influential Worcester. Sure, that's an uncontested argument, but why does this mean that the title should be undisambiguated? Why is disambiguation offensive or harmful? It's as if there is a silly idea that occupation of a basename is a recognition of value. There are readers not familiar with the original Worcester, but familiar with another, so disambiguation will help some, while hurting none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Still support. There is no question that this Worcester is the most long term significant Worcester. But, it is not more important than England, appending ", England" does not diminish its importance. This is not a parenthetical disambiguation to clarify an ambiguous term, Worcester, England is a better natural title, and one that happens also to be far more recognizable to an international, especially non-angliphone, audiences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – reducing ambiguity is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    How does it reduce ambiguity as "Worcester, England "is not a natural disambiguation, for example why not use "Worcester, Worcestershire" instead or are readers meant to know that England is the obvious choice? -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    "England" is less ambiguous than not saying where at all; it seems natural enough to me, but I admit there could be better choices. Readers don't need to choose, they just benefit from less ambiguity. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - better as a dab page to help readers get to the correct article and avoid any articles accidentally linking to the wrong article. Worcester (UK) may have more history etc, but a reader may be looking at an article for real-world reasons (e.g. for some background info on a place they're going on a business trip) and that's at least as likely to be the US city. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    First you talk about linking which is an editorial thing, and the rules are that UK town do not have disambiguation while US ones do, so where is the problem with linking? The you bring up real-world reasons like a "business trip" what makes that any more real than wanting to look up the city were most of King John is buried, or to find the city with the most beautiful cricket ground in Britain? Which would be of more interest to the average English speaking Indian? -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the site isn't working now but it might be good to check: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Worcester,%20England and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Worcester,%20Massachusetts Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Population isn't the only measure. Worcester, UK is significantly older and has much more history/culture etc than this US upstart. Jeni (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you really think age is a good way to determine the primary meaning of a term even if the younger meaning is 166 years old (as opposed to an age like 20 years old)?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, use Worcester (England) instead. The comma disambiguation stems from American practice where they actually call their city "Worcester, Massachusetts". That's different from British practice and we should get away from the wholesale use of article titles that mislead people into thinking that's what the subject is actually called. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Interestingly enough, that was how I initially propsed the move, until someone changed it. Check the talk page if you don't believe me. Georgia guy (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the Durham decision. UK-bias is evident in the current setup. The British city already fails primary topic-ness per the Grok results. If you remove the Massachusetts hits from the British page hits, you get a negative number. Since many people looking for the U.S. city will arrive here, it is not clear that even half the hits for the British city are even for the British city, since there must be many hits that accidently reach this page wanting the U.S. city instead. There could be very few actual real hits for the British city, most could be accidental hits wanting the U.S. city. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have struck "support" because while you may comment as an IP address you may not support the move. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    As per Yaskar, whose edit I reverted, I don't support PBS striking these !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as strongly as possible. This is an argument simply for the sake of argument and I would go so far as to say that that this is a purely US-centric POV and essentially has nothing to do with Wikipedia. For those US Americans who are to young to remember, if there hadn't been a Worcester, England, there would be nowhere for the US place to take its name from. That said, why can't anyone be arsed to read the multiple previous RfCs where the outcome was to keep the status quo? Have some people really got nothing better to do than look for solutions where there are no problems? or like the American admin (now fortunately desysoped) who went through all the English place names and modified the IPA to the North American rhotic pronunciation , insisting that that is how it is pronounced in the UK. Has the world gone completely mad? How about building some content for a change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. You definitely appear to think that older meanings are always more important than newer meanings regardless of how old (in this case 166 years old) the newer meaning is. Look at Pi and Pi (letter). The Greek letter is the older meaning, but the mathematical constant is the primary meaning. Georgia guy (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • You think 166 years is old? The house I live in is around 600 years old. Worcester is much much older with a rich history. The present situation is WP:NOTBROKEN so leave it alone and find something useful to do instead.Charles (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • 166 years is longer than anyone has lived. It's nothing like it's less than 30 years old. Georgia guy (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. When I first saw this nomination I read it as purely US -v- UK and as a red-blooded Brit my hackles rose with the intention of a long post opposing. When I re-read I realised the argument is not which town is primary topic, but that NO place is primary topic. That is correct and in contradiction to much of the discussion here. FWIW I am not happy with proposed title for the English city and my preferred article title would be City of Worcester with redirects from (England), but I understand why that would not be acceptable. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it looks like the place in Massachusetts was named around 1684 24.131.80.54 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Who cares when the place in Mass was named? The current huge cathedral in Worcester, founded as a priory in 680 is nearly 1,000 years old, in use, and perfectly preserved, with one of the finest rings of bells in the world. Anything in America at that time (and for a very long time afterwards) was no bigger than a tent or the largest of those bells. I share Richhoncho's British red blood (well, more blue actually) and I remain wholly convinced, as I have been over the past five years worth of previous debates on this subject (see archives) that this proposal is either nothing more than cultural hegemony or an exercise by someone who has nothing else better to do. Concurring with Charlesdrakew, I suggest we all get back to more constructive work, coincidentally such as building an encyclopedia which with a bit of luck may last as long as an English church.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Let you breath out and breath in again, repeat process, that should fix the blue blood problem. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • And Martin Luther King, Sr. came before Jr., yet Martin Luther King redirects to his son. If the arguments were simply that the English one should not be the primary topic since it is not old enough compared to newer ones your argument would be perfect. But that's not the case, and being older does not overcome the fact that other Worcesters are the primary topic in other countries, have more residents and are arguably therefore more significant to more modern day people, and, most importantly, the UK one is not the intended target for the majority of users of the term. If this was a proposal to move the Massachusetts city to the primary topic it would be totally reasonable to say "wait, the UK city has a much much longer history". But it is fairly absurd to say "the UK city has a longer history, which therefore overcomes all those other factors." And the last time this move request was made was in 2008, as far as I can tell?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
        • If the present situation has worked since 2008 without complaint it indicates there is nothing that needs fixing.Charles (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question WP:CATHEDRAL is not policy, it's just opinion, why all the distraction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.54 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since none of the reasons given for this proposed move are compelling, and most given against it are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - Speaking of other Worcesters with substantial histories (and almost the exact population as the UK city, interestingly enough) Worcester, Western Cape is an interesting read and is unsurprisingly the overwhelmingly primary topic for South African english readers. Just something to note in regards to the claims that for every English speaker outside the USA the UK city is overwhelmingly the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    I am not sure how you come to that conclusion from the link you have provided proves anything about what it is the primary topic by weight of view and not by some other parameter such as location. For example do you think it likely that https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=stratford returns "East London Shopping" as the major hit for Australians looking for Stratford before it returns Stratford upon Avon or even a mention of "Stratford, Victoria"? -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Worcester" as a disambig page per page view statistics. I do not have a strong enough opinion of what English city's page should be names. Found5dollar (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - Somebody has been WP:CANVASSing on Reddit's /r/England subreddit asking for people to oppose this move. FWIW, I oppose the move. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The city in the US (of which I admit I'd not previously heard, by the way) derived its name from the city in England - which has existed, with that name, for about 1400 years. (The idea that a place that has only existed for 166 years is "old", is laughable.) There are no compelling reasons for moving - there is not an overwhelming preponderance of Ghits for the US city, and common sense suggests that historical precedence is a strong (not inevitable, I agree) reason to suggest primacy here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ghmyrtle, the discussion isn't about whether the US city is the primary topic, but whether there might be no primary topic. It therefore comes down to whether the UK city gets an overwhelming preponderance of the views. No one is arguing that the US city should replace it as the primary, that would be silly. But the question is just, is the UK page the intended target for the overwhelming majority of users of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - What's the best way to account for the fact that the US has a bigger population? Does it have to be as extreme as dividing the population by 5 to pretend it's equivalent to the UK? That would just be silly. But for the sake of argument, let's do it. Rather than 48370 views in the past 90 days, it would have 9674. In the same period, the South African city got 8720. Even before adding in all the other Worcesters, we're at about half the views for the UK city -- normally not enough for us to declare a primary (and even less so using this ridiculous 1/5 of a view method). When you add in the other cities of the same name into the mix, it gets even less clear. And when you take into account that a significant portion of those looking for another Worcester first end up at the UK page, the margin gets smaller still. And this is even ignoring the fact that not all the page views for the MA city are coming from the US! It would be rather small minded to ignore that in numerous countries besides the USA or UK, no clear city is the primary topic, and in a bunch it is in fact Massachusetts. I don't expect this to change the views that are motivated by pure opinion or national pride, but at least it'll be a fair point to make next time this discussion is proposed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be worth noting that Worcester, Ma. has been in the news recently over Ebola research, which may have affected search figures.Charles (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The numbers don't show us anything different if we go back to January. Or last year. And there's been lots of articles about Worcester in the news, both now and throughout the years -- the one you picked doesn't even seem to be a particularly major one.It's a large city, there will be news everyday.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Question Yaksar i think i see where you are going with that but why do you not instead multiply by the ratio of Massachusetts to England, it is Worcester, Massachusetts not Worcester, United States, and the place was in Massachusetts before it was in the United States 24.131.80.54 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
24.131.80.54 (talk, I only did that to show how even if we go to the extreme stupidity of making that calculation, there still isn't a clear primary topic. Obviously we should not be treating views as more or less based on where they came from (after all, I don't think people from Utah or Hawaii or New Mexico have any strong connection to a Massachusetts city).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as common sense. The age of length of existence of a topic or place is not the determining factor for the primary topic. A better case based on page views, which BTW generally don't have a bias except to what people have actually located at, would be for the Massachusetts city. As far as I can see so far in this discussion, there is no policy or guideline supporting the current situation, other then it's British so it must be the primary topic or I just like it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree the age of the topic is irrelevant, but, the guideline is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it does say "long-term significance". That may be used to justify the current situation. Widefox; talk 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Size isn't everything. Current status isn't everything. The English city has a far more important place in history than the American city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This discussion shows that importance is not purely objective. Some people think that a huge cathedral in England is important. Other people think that the design and construction of the world's first liquid-fueled rocket is important. It's apples-and-oranges to try to weigh more than a millennium of tradition against the advent of the Space Age, not to mention all the other important facts about each city. Examination of page views provides an objective basis for deciding whether one topic is so predominant in the eyes of the readers that it should be primary. Here, it is clear that the city in Massachusetts, plus all the other subjects currently listed at Worcester (disambiguation), collectively attract so much interest that the city in England can't be said to be primary. We will best serve our readers by making Worcester a dab page. For me, service to our readers (wherever they may live) is the prime objective. JamesMLane t c 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Worcester UK is far far more historical as is much older, Plus seeing as the Worcester Massachusetts article got its name from us it imho makes sense to have the UK article as the main one. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTINHERITED, the UK city derives no additional notability in the Wikipedia context from having the US city named for it. See Boston and Boston, Lincolnshire which has no additional notability accrue to Lincolnshire due to Massachusetts. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Note well. There are not just two places with this name. There are several and given that there is no policy that support this position. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - given that there is no evidence showing that the community in England is the primary topic when individuals search for the word, it would be best to have the disambiguate article be the primary article, allowing views to choose from the multiple articles that share the common name. This is the least bias, must neutral choice IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The English city is the primary topic by reason of enduring cultural significance. I note that some above claim that this should not be a consideration, and take this as an admission that if we do follow our current guidelines, the move will not take place, as it should not. Does anyone really think that Worcester sauce comes from the USA? Well, yes, I'm sure they do, and it's Wikipedia's mission to give them accurate information. Andrewa (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Our guidelines don't say to base primary topic on only on an opinion of cultural significance. It is based on 2 factors. 1 -- "primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Obviously the English city is not the primary topic on that point, as page view numbers and searches indicate. There's pretty much no room for argument on that one. 2 -- "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." This is where there can be debate. Some editors claim that historic significance is greater for the UK city and therefore takes precedence, while others argue that present day importance, as indicated by current factors such as reader interest, population, importance of the region, or being a hub for biotechnology and technology industries indicate more or equal significance. What is abundantly clear is that, of the 2 requirements, the UK city completely fails to be the overwhelming primary topic on the 1st and for the second is up for debate but certainly isn't overwhelmingly clear with no argument. Together it is abundantly clear that the current guidelines indicate there is no primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Being old and English are not sufficient criteria for primary topic. There is ample evidence that large portions of readers may well be looking for something else. It is incumbent on those claiming there is a primary topic to provide some evidence. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    "large portions of readers" is a scary prospect with it being Halloween and all. That apart Wikipedia is more that just the yellow pages of places. One of the joys of an encyclopedia is stumbling across interesting stuff that you did not know existed. If readers find themselves looking at an older and more interesting city than expected they may well enjoy it. There is too much emphasis being put on page view figures.Charles (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's utterly absurd. I completely agree that one of the best parts of Wikipedia is learning about new topics, but the notion that the best way to do that is by sending readers to pages that aren't what they are looking for is completely ridiculous.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Primary Topic. Can't spot any new users above but closer should check for socks and SPAs (based on last similar RM). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see why the American Worcester is in any way more notable than the English city. Indeed I suspect that from outside the UK and the US, people will be wanting more the English city, because of its historical notability (and people will have family connections, etc, with it). Argovian (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Someone already showed that the British City is not significantly more notable in the world outside the UK than all other uses. So it's all just UK bias. IT doesn't matter that the US city is not more notable than the UK city, only that the UK city is not all that more notable that all other uses. Therefore it's UK bias that is already disappointing searchers (per the usage stats, and google search results) and there is no US bias here. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose There's a lot of bogus arguments put forth here. The idea of some "less than 30 years old" rule applying to articles on places is laughable, no idea how you could come up with that. Overall, this page does get nearly as many views, and has a decent case for historical significance, and it just doesn't strike me as very encyclopedia-like to not give preeminence to English towns with namesakes, as long as they have some significance (so not Boston). Nonetheless, page views for the Massachusetts city are pretty high, it's a larger town, it has some historical importance as an industrial town although the article does a poor job of explaining this, so it isn't absolutely clear the English city is the primary topic. —innotata 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Please realize that this is not a proposed move of Worcester, Massachusetts to Worcester. Georgia guy (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I can read that. I mentioned being skeptical about moving English towns with any fame away from the basename. —innotata 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I mean, anything can happen--Cheddar finally got moved, so anything's possible. I support but am not optimistic--how do you expect a UK citizen to accept that their cities are not magically more primary just by being older? Red Slash 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Even outside of the nationalistic opinions, I think the rather weak wording (and highlighting of the wrong points) in the nomination also led to a lot of reaction votes to the proposal. Perhaps the next request in 6 months or so (should this close as no consensus) could be worded a lot better and raise the more significant points, so that the argument and responses can be a lot clearer.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that. In particular not happy with the misleading "views" comment in the nom. Worcester, Massachusetts only gets more views for "Worcester, Massachusetts", it doesn't get more views for just "Worcester" because no one would search for a minor US city without the state. If this is moved now I would support anyone initiating a MOVE REVIEW In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd disagree with that -- this could certainly be closed as a consensus to move if based on weighing points that use actual policy over opinions or ridiculous twists of logic. The views comment in the nom is actually the most correct part. We had the same faulty logic that no one gets to a different article by the current one word title at the move discussion for Cheddar, I believe. A fundamental misunderstanding of both common language and article naming guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If there is no consensus now it is hard to see why we would need another discussion in a mere six months time. That would look like an abuse of process and some tedious attempt to wear down opponents of this unnecessary tinkering.Charles (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 30 year rule is not based in policy/guideline. Poorly chosen nom has poisoned the debate. No prejudice for fresh debate in 6 months. Countering the WP:SYSTEMIC US bias (vs UK) would leave this as is for now. Similar to Cambridge vs Cambridge, Massachusetts, we have natural disambiguation from the US states which naturally favours the UK as a basename. Widefox; talk 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as no primary topic; per proposal of moving the disambiguation to the stem, and linking to both articles from there.
As others have noted, regardless of the proposal, the debate seems to have become that the US city should supplant the UK city entirely, based solely on pageviews, which is only a partial way of looking at it. For instance, Franz Ferdinand is a popular band in the UK and Europe, but are named after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, whose assassination triggered WWI, making him a very important figure. This is reflected in the current stats for the last 90 days, when the Archduke's page has been viewed 156000 times and the band's 93000 times, but if we were having this discussion in e.g. March 2008 about February 2008's pageviews, when there wasn't the centenary of WWI, then we'd see that Archduke Franz Ferdinand had 50000 pageviews in February vs. 67000 pageviews for the band. Both articles have different significances, one for a historical figure whose assassination set off major events, the other being a band with mainstream popularity and large audiences; as a result, the stem at Franz Ferdinand is a disambiguation page. Likewise, the UK city has a long history, dating back to Roman times, and the US city has twice the population in a much more populous country. Even taking into account differences in population size (US vs. UK), you have to balance factors such as history in the decision.
As a sidenote, if you want another statistical way of looking at it; taking the two cities themselves into account, the UK city represents 0.15% of the UK population, and the US city 0.06% of the US population; including the metropolitan area for the US brings it up to 0.29%, but for parity you'd need to look at something like the population of surrounding Worcestershire, which represents 0.88% of the UK population. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Primary topic exists to serve those users who use the "Go" button. I strongly believe that to be a tiny proportion of readers, and the vast majority of people arriving at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester will have come from an external search provider (eg Google) or a direct link to the article (a wikilink or a link from another website). This undermines the value of page views as a metric - you cannot infer anything about the number of misdirected readers, who got here by "Go".
The page one results of a Google UK search for Worcester exclusively relate to the English city, and one of the hits is this article. I believe a Google.com search in the US exclusively returns Worcester, MA on page 1, including a link to Worcester, Massachusetts (can a US editor confirm? I don't trust Google.com to ignore my location). In other words, UK and US readers using links or Google already arrive at the correct article.
What will happen to the vast majority of users if this page is moved? Wikilinks to this article will be temporarily degraded. External links to this article will be degraded for a longer period, some permanently.
As for external search - we can see what will happen, by comparing to Durham. The page one results of a Google UK search exclusively relate to the English city, except there is a link to a WP disambig instead of the WP article. Presumably that will change to the Durham, England article, and I will be intrigued to see how long it takes for Google to repair that. Meanwhile a Google.com search in the US is unaffected, and continues to be exclusively for Durham, NC, including the wiki article.
I would expect the same here in event of a pagemove. This will result in zero benefit to US users, except that small proportion who try their luck with "Go". It will significantly degrade the utility of this article to UK users, as they will no longer even see this article in a Google search (for at least a month). This is not about UK vs US, its about providing a minor benefit to a small fraction of users, and ignoring the principle of stable URIs and the damage a rename causes. IMO - The costs of this move outweigh the gains. I realise this oppose is really an opposition to guidance/policy than the application of that guidance to this case. However, we can see the actual negative impacts that will happen here, by comparing to the Durham case.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to add info on the effects of the Durham move:
  • The article on the English city has seen its traffic drop by half from 650 to 350
  • The article on the NC city has seen no change in its traffic, averaging 550
  • The disambig page's traffic has increased 3000% from 13 to 400
The move has halved the number of people reading the article on the English city, and almost all of them are going via the disambig. At the same time it hasn't affected the traffic for the US city at all. The English hasn't suddenly gotten less interesting, so my conclusion is about 50% of potential readers are no longer finding the article. This strongly suggests external websites (especially search engines) are the dominant source of readers; and that the pagemove has driven away one third of the traffic to the articles about the two cities.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Nilf, I respectfully disagree with you on that point. I think it might be a bit extreme to assume that half of the readers interested in the English city are so impatient that, upon clicking the Wikipedia link and ending up on the disambiguation page, they are unwilling to click the first item listed on the page. When "Durham" is googled in the UK, the disambiguation page title is still Durham, and the first sentence of the description they are able to see is "Durham commonly refers to: Durham, England, a city in County Durham, England", which as far as I can tell is what anyone would absolutely still click if they were looking for the Wikipedia article on the UK city. In terms of why Durham, England's page views halved while the NC city's stayed the same, I believe the reason for this actually contradicts your two points above. Previously, all people searching for the MA city by simply typing "Durham" (it's been argued above that no one in the USA searches for cities without including ", State" after them, but that's obviously quite a silly and incorrect assumption) would also pass through the UK article. They would then click the hatnote that would lead directly to the NC article. Views for people searching Durham NC (or any other Durham) would therefore be added to the UK city no matter what -- effectively it was getting the views for both the UK city and the views for a DAB. The halving would therefore show that a large percentage of people actually do use the search box, rather than indicate that UK or UK interested readers are oddly impatient. As for why the disambiguation page's numbers have gone up so much, the explanation is the same -- users looking for either Durham by just typing Durham into Wikipedia search now end up there.
However, I do agree with your point that it is frustrating and annoying that Google takes a while to update their linking after page moves. But for widely viewed articles like these, the issues are never permanent. I see articles that had a similar issue from a month ago are now fixed, and these are far less viewed pages. I don't think this short term issue, which is only a blip in terms of the existence of this article, is a long term major issue in terms of a move, as annoying as it is. Thanks for reading.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No its not half of the readers interested in the English city are so impatient that they don't click through from the dab page to the city. Its that 40% are no longer using Wikipedia at all, and of the remainder 12% are too impatient to click through.
My point is hardly anyone uses Wikipedia, by going to en.wikipedia.org, typing something in the search box and then hitting "go". The majority of people looking for info on Durham go to Google, type "Durham" in the search box there, then might choose Wikipedia from the various options. US Google users see the NC article in their top ten, UK Google users used to see the WP article about the UK city in their top ten, and now see the dab and have to click through it to get to the wiki article. People look for information, not for Wikipedia specifically, and Wikipedia traffic for the two Durhams has dropped from 1,200 to 900.
I hope this is a short term event - could you indicate one of these other cases where Google et al have adapted?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But from a UK google search for "Durham", the only change is that one now sees, in the same position on the page I believe, still the exact same name for the link, but instead of the descriptor "Durham is a historic city and the county town of County Durham" they see "Durham commonly refers to: Durham, England, a city in County Durham, England". Perhaps this change in phrasing might scare some people off, but I'd imagine it to be very few. It's not like the result now has a different link name and does not mention the UK city right off the bat on the search page.
In terms of examples, the most relevant to this situation are cases like Lincoln, England or Cork (city), all of which come up as expected. But these are pretty dated. It was done for pretty much all US cities except for ones specifically mentioned in the AP Stylebook, and that fixed itself without too much suffering.
For more recent examples, we could look at Military order (monastic society). Until recently just called Military order, which now redirects to the disambiguation, the topic is now number 2 for a google search. That one was just one I pulled up by looking at my the recent move discussions I've participated in where a subject formerly at an undisambiguated name was moved away and given a disambiguated title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the best example might well prove to be Durham. Unlike any other reasonably recent case I can think of, the primary terms are cities, with strong regional preferences (which Google will follow). There's a few testable hypotheses there: How long does Google take to adapt? If it does adapt, does the dab disappear again as irrelevant? What happens to dab pageviews when Google does adapt? (I don't know how long it will take, but when that happens I guess the UK article views will increase slightly, and dab views decrease markedly)
With Military order pageviews dropped like a stone when it was moved away. That suggests at most ~10% of traffic looking for the monastic societies is going via the dab. If a similar ratio applies to Durham, 10% of Durham, NC's traffic is 55 came via the UK city, and the drop in traffic for the article on the UK Durham is significantly higher than that.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the use of 'Go'; as an example, I use Google Chrome as my main browser, and with it can navigate to a page simply by typing 'en', hitting tab, and then typing the name of the article that I'm looking for. This is something that it learns to do automatically, as it can pick up internal site search methods (in Wikipedia's case, by appending the search term to "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search="). This is functionally equivalent to my typing the search term in the search box and hitting 'Go', as it will navigate to exact matches for search terms, and only go to search pages on no exact match. I'm pretty sure that Firefox and IE also offer a similar function in their search engine lists. Now, I've not implemented anything especially arcane in doing this, just used a fairly automatic function to a popular browser, with leads me to believe that others are likely to do the same. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Nilf, I think the situation with the terms there is rather different, in terms of the types of people and the context they may look up a historic or academic term like military order versus a fairly public and accessible term like a major city. I was giving it as an example of how google results do eventually correct themselves, not because the types of people accessing it or the way one may generally search that article are similar. Perhaps the best solution is to wait and see what happens with the Durham search. If next time this is proposed the situation has changed, we can re-assess that point.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was precisely for this reason that I favour the guidance that American towns should be disambiguated by state (WP:USPLACE), as such usage is common for towns and cities in the United States while it is not in other English speaking countries. The compromised reached over the "AP Stylebook" exceptions seems reasonable. If the proposed change was made and an a search for the American town was made on just Worcester, then a reader would still have to navigate to the correct page, as the page on which they searcher would land would be a dab page, which thanks to the hatnote is no further away than searches are at the moment. If the searcher search on the usual natural disambiguation used by Americans then they will end up on the correct page. For British people searching on Worcester would take them to a dab page (one extra click), and there is no natural disambiguation for British cities such as Worcester is it "Worcester, Worcestershire" or "Worcester, England" or "Worcester, Untied Kingdom" or "Worcester, Great Britain", all of them are arbitrary as the city is not usually disambiguated in British English. Hence under the current method we condemn some people to navigate via the Worcester page to the American Worcester page, far more people looking for the English Worcester page would end up at the dab page simply because there is no usual/natural disambiguation used in British English. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    The Australian site, http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attractions-g186424-Activities-Worcester_Worcestershire_England.html carries the meta text "Fun things to do in Worcestershire, England", for example. It is hard to find discussion of Worcester, England from outside the UK, but when when found, "Worcestershire, England" is the preferred disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Worcester and Worcestershire are distinct from one another; Worcester is the county town of Worcestershire, so I'd imagine that a lot of what goes on in Worcestershire involves Worcester, but it's essentially analogous to, for instance, "Fun things to do in Bathurst, NSW" vs. "Fun things to do in Bathurst Region, NSW". — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Worcester, England has more history; Worcester, Massachusetts has more population. In addition, there are dozens of other Worcesters. On balance, there is no primary topic. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -So one is older, one is bigger, one is the first thing people think of in the UK, one of the first thing people think of in the US...so, neither one is really a primary topic to people who are looking for it. Makes sense to put it to a disambiguation page. The whole idea that UK cities are ALWAYS the primary topic just because they are British is not a WP:Policy, nor should it ever be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have struck "support" because while you may comment as an IP address you may not support the move. What makes you think that an Americans who lives in Atlanta, Huston, or Los Angeles are going to be thinking of "Worcester, Massachusetts" and not the city in Worcestershire if they put in an unqualified search for "Worcester"? -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    PBS, dude, you're right. I can't tell what Americans are thinking, if they'd rather want Worcester, Mass or Worcester, England. Just like I can't tell if British people want to look up one or the other! That is what I wholeheartedly support making Worcester a Disambiguation page! Both Cities are of equal importance, and we can't tell who wants what! Also, nowhere in wiki policy is there anything that says IP users aren't members of the wiki-world.
    Incidently, since there is someone obviously making this into a UK vs US poll by going and grabbing people off of redit, I'd fathom that many people arguing against the disambiguation page for "The one in England is older!!!" are also saying: "Please come say that you think Worcester is more important than the city in America at this discussion and stop the Americans from trying to control the english language" as from the redit page [1]143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)143.65.196.20, ip users are people too! --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    What is a dude? Most British people know of a Worcester in England so if they search for the town in Massachusetts they will qualify it with Massachusetts or America or whatever. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As per Yaskar, whose edit I reverted, I don't support PBS striking these !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment sentiment as per User:Kudpung, so the proposal is to direct the readers to the dab, right. OK. The primarytopic discussion is one thing. This is to aid readers, right....So, has anyone of all the editors above who are arguing for this little change actually checked & fixed the dab, maybe even before proposing this? I did, and was the only editor (apart from a minor grammar fix in January) in over a year. Worth reflecting on. Widefox; talk 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sort of confused by what you're saying. Sure, you improved the disambiguation page, and that's a good thing. But it's not like its state before you made these changes was particularly messy, or screaming out that it needed to be changed to be functional. There's a billion and one different things that need improvement in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that all other changes must be held off until those happen.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If you must draw me into details - the diff is [2]. It listed the South African item above the US city, so it's now much better for readers wanting the US article, and I'd say desirable to do before moving the dab to the basename! There should be an honour to fix up a dab before proposing making it the basename. That's not my point - it's the comparison of effort expended on primarytopic discussion vs editing. Widefox; talk 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note I understand that this is not a vote and we must come to a consensus, but I tallied up what people are saying to figure out what the over all opinion seems to be.

  • 20 (including nominator) completely support the switch of "Worcester" to the disambig page
  • 1 only stated they oppose the move of "Worcester" to "Worcester, England" no comment on the disambig move.
  • 17 completely oppose the switch of "Worcester" to the disambig page

It seems there are really 2 questions being discussed, 1) should "Worcester" be a disambig and 2) if it is, what should the English city's page be called. While moving the disambig page to "Worcester" has more votes,that is by no means a consensus. The possibly new name for the English city's page still seems very unresolved. Found5dollar (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Note. I have posted on the talk pages of the other "Worcester"s of the world to inform them of this discussion.Found5dollar (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there seem to be perfectly respectable reasons for considering the English city to be a primary topic, and there seems to be no benefit in replacing it with a disambiguation page: people looking for the MA city by typing just Worcester into the Search field - that is, ignoring the autosuggestions and ignoring the fact that the expected article title for that place includes the name of the state - will still not get to where they want to be any faster. And as to the other question, definitely oppose retitling this page "Worcester, Worcestershire", if that's really being seriously suggested. W. P. Uzer (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Section break (requested move)

  • Support It seems clear to me that common place names that encompass significant cities in the US and UK, not to mention other places, should be disambiguated (e.g., Durham, Richmond, Rochester) when there isn't a clear primary topic (and by that I mean one that attracts broad consensus). (The "older" argument is clearly spurious, and instantly refuted with the example of Boston.) I understand the impulse to call US bias on those favoring this move, but the status quo quite clearly reflects UK bias. Our pillar of neutrality practically demands disambiguation in these cases. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the previous example of Durham has demonstrated how shifting to a dab does not assist the majority of our readers; since that move, readership of the two main articles in total has declined. The status quo means two clicks for the US city and one for the UK - the proposed both means two clicks for both. This doesn't help anyone, and actively inconveniences many. 92.27.119.28 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Search engines, internal and external, send readers straight to the right page, whatever the title, if the reader can choose the precise page from the search results, a choice aided by a precisely disambiguated title. Wikilinks also send readers to the right page, regardless of the title, if the wikilink is correct, and wikilinks are easier to correct if the title is precisely disambiguated. Less people going to both pages probably means less people were going to the wrong page first. DAB pages only come into play if your search query is inadequate and you choose the wrong hit, or you follow a bad wikilink, or if you want the DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, or most pertinently, if you type "Worcester" into the Search box and press enter (without paying much attention to the drop-down suggestions). Given that nearly all places in the U.S. have the state disambiguator anyway, I imagine regular readers are less likely to type the bare name if their target is a place in the U.S. And even if they do, being taken to a DAB page as opposed to a page about the city that their target is named for (both of which have highly visible links to their target) seems not to make things significantly better for them. Whereas that setup would make things significantly worse for people looking for the English Worcester, or clicking on any of the existing links to plain Worcester (and even if someone plans to change all those links before the page is moved, which is not guaranteed, then editors who are unaware of the move will still likely continue to create new ones). W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
External search engines should, but do not always send readers straight to the right page. They send readers to the pages with the highest ranking according to the algorithm used. However that can give the wrong thing certain circumstances - such as if a webpage is moved, without the old title continuing to point at it. That's because the incoming links which are a major contributor to page ranking will continue to point to the old title (we can only fix internal links).
The Durham move was such a case, as UK readers no longer find the article about the city, they find the dab instead. Meanwhile US users are unaffected as the NC city still dominates their searches. If Worcester is moved, the same negative impact will hit UK users after this article, with no positive benefit to US users after info on the MA city.
To be honest, I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself is wrong - if guidance advocates breaking of stable URLs then its bad guidance. We are not constructing a brand new resource, but maintaining an existing one. In the abstract, we would choose the most significant to be at the basename. However, once that choice has been made and the article locations are settled, no one really cares. If we consistently used wikidata codes you could still find the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Worcester appears to have greater enduring notability than Worcester, MA for historic and cultural reasons - I don't see that a similar argument for Boston would have been effective. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarek, it's only logical that I ask, and you can submit, which Worcester appears to have greater enduring notability, and by what measure? One can make an argument that as Worcester Mass is younger, it will have enduring notability further into the future, as Worcester, England, has lost some of it's sparkle in the last couple hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Put your crystal ball away. That is not a valid argument here.Charles (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Charles, my point is that saying that one appears better than the other, without any cause is as spurious an argument as saying one will be more important in 300 years. Also, it's humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

NOTE I have posted on the following pages to inform editors that this discussion has been reopened: Talk:Worcester, Western Cape, Talk:Worcestershire, Talk:Barry, Illinois, Talk:Worcester County, Maryland, Talk:Worcester (community), Wisconsin, Talk:Worcester, Wisconsin, Talk:Worcester, Vermont, Talk:Worcester Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Talk:Worcester, New York, Talk:Worcester County, Massachusetts, Talk:Worcester, Massachusetts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts.Found5dollar (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Google 'Worcester' and see where most of the hits are located. What have all those other 'Worcesters' got to do with it other than canvassing US editors? This debate has not been reopened, but had missed being closed when it should have been. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
They are simply the other places found at the current Worcester (disambiguation) page. they will all be equally affected by this move as either Worcester, England or Worcester, Massachusetts. They were all previously informed of the move request so I just updated the note on their talk pages.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify why those places will be affected? Surely they will remain at the disambiguation page, where they are now.--Ykraps (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Worcester Mass will also be at the disambiguation page. I think the thought is, if we're asking if there's no clear primary topic (which is the point of this debate) then all the Worcester's should be notified. I can't read Found5$ mind, but, seems to me it's a good practice. There has been actual canvassing done on this debate previously, by those opposing the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think what we have to remember is that nobody is trying to say that Worcester MA is more important than Worcester, UK. There are a lot of editors who feel heartfelt that "their" Worcester is the most important one. By simple metrics by page views, google hits, etc, it seems that there is no "most important" Worcester. There is a predominant Worcester in the USA, and one in England, but there are other Worcesters (as seen above) of course linked to the disambiguation page. This page will NOT be switched from Worcester, England, to Worcester Mass, nor has anyone suggested that. What riles me, is that opposed to arguments about merits, it comes down to things like: "Worcester, UK is significantly older and has much more history/culture etc than this US upstart" and "For those US Americans who are to young to remember, if there hadn't been a Worcester, England, there would be nowhere for the US place to take its name from" (which, to the last statement, would be every American able to use a computer, as they probably didn't fight in 1776), as well as "how do you expect a UK citizen to accept that their cities are not magically more primary just by being older?"

Please, someone, have a metric that'll show if there is a clear primary topic (not just old, not just American) and then there's a debate. Otherwise, there is no clear primary topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2014 (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.


Comment on above RM. BD2412, thank you for looking at it. The move request was just relisted though after a Move Review and probably should get 7 days of discussion after a reopen still. It was not open for two months, it was previously closed after 2 weeks, then put on move review for 2 months, then reopened just 2 days ago. As such, it should be left open for another 5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worcester,_England/Archive_4&oldid=1090586183"