Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)

Opening comments

With only two places outside of the United States named Plymouth (besides the original that should be linked at the beginning) versus the dozens of U.S. places, it makes sense to group and order them "in the U.S." and "outside the U.S.". Sections with only a single listing look odd and illogical. -Acjelen 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Plymouth, Mass. called Plymouth (town), Massachusetts?

I'm not sure. It is a town. In WP, paranthetical qualifiers are usually used when more than one subject can have the same title, but the article Plymouth, Massachusetts is a redirect to this article. -Acjelen 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a differentiation between the Census-Designated Place within the large town of Plymouth (namely downtown and historic Plymouth) as compared to the very large town of Plymouth, Massachusetts itself (comprising several CDPs). Raime 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, Massachusetts

Shouldn't this town, one of the first in the modern-day United States, the site of many American landmarks, and the location of several historic events, be listed prominetly at the top of the page along with Plymouth, Devon? Raime 04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The historical significance of the place is covered in several related articles and are not necessarily served by forwarding a link to the article about the current town. older ≠ wiser 16:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The current town remains extremely important, and nearly all related articles are covered in the town's article. It is by far more prominent than any other Plymouth listed under 'towns in the United States' named Plymouth. The importantce did lie in the town of Plymouth, not Plymouth colony in general, and the importance remains today. It should be listed prominently at the top of the page. Raime 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

• The result of the discussion was no consensus.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Plymouth (disambiguation) → Plymouth
• Plymouth → Plymouth, Devon

There is no primary topic for Plymouth. Given the widely known automobile mark, certainly the small city in England (less than 250,000 in population) currently at Plymouth is not it.

The guidelines for naming English cities clearly dictate that "disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, ceremonial county]], so in this case the English city needs to be moved to Plymouth, Devon to make room for the dab page at Plymouth. --Serge (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I need to point out that Plymouth sometimes sold half a million cars in just one year, twice as many as the current entire population of the small city in England. The notion that this obscure city in England is somehow more notable than the venerable automobile brand, much less the primary topic for this name, is astounding. --Serge (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. The nominator's rationale seems rather vague and subjective. In the absense of any real evidence that the English city is not the primary topic, I see no compelling reason to make this move. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. Clearly the car or the American city should be the primary topic, if there was one. Add to that the number of other entries on the dab page and you have about the clearest case possible for not having a primary topic. This problem exists because of the problem with settlement naming conventions. The dab page should be at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Clearly"? On what basis? And which American city? PC78 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Plymouth, Massachusetts, famous because of the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving. Cheers, Rai•me 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • A city with a population of around 60,000, as opposed to a major city in a major country with a population of 250,000, from which the American city derives its name? As for the cars, I don't believe they are particuarly well known outside the US. PC78 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Just as Plymouth, Devon is not particularly well known outside the UK. We're not arguing that the car brand or the town in Massachusetts is the primary topic, just that the city in the UK isn't. Cheers, Rai•me 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • This is why Plymouth has pages in 40 wikipedias outside en and Plymouth, Massachusetts in 12 wikipedias. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
            • A collection of stubs written in other language Wikipedias does not indicate global significance nor primary topic in the English one. Cheers, Rai•me 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Which American community? Plymouth, Massachusetts, of course. As far as evidence, Googling "Plymouth" + "Massachusetts" returns 469,000 hits, "Plymouth" + "Devon" returns 389,000 ... and "Plymouth" + "automobile" over three million. I'd say a disambiguation page is the least that should be done.  Ravenswing  03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom; there is no primary topic here for "Plymouth", as is the case with Lancaster. Instead, we have three prominent uses and many other less common meanings, so a dab page makes the most sense; then, all readers can easily be directed to the article they are searching for. Cheers, Rai•me 03:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The notion that this obscure automobile brand from America is somehow more notable than the city in England is astounding. Seriously, without resorting to the hyperbole of the request rationale, it is not clear why a city with such historical significance is not primary topic here. The arguments from the failed Talk:Plymouth#requested_move are compelling too. I will leave a note at that talk page to notify readers of this relevant debate. Knepflerle (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems that all other "Plymouth"s are named after the one in Devon; therefore, that is primary usage. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Where is that outlined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Being the original placename does not designate primary usage, as evidenced by Boston. Cheers, Rai•me 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Plymouth, Devon is not obscure. It is a major and historic base of the British Navy, and a main holiday center. I have had several holidays near there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the name is clearly ambiguous and should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Population is clearly the best and fairest method of deciding which settlement is more important, so the British city wins that. I am also of the opinion that a well-known city is more important than a dissolved car manufacturer. To the Americans here: Calling Plymouth an obscure town just says to me that you shouldn't be trying to judge how well-known a particular place in the UK is. For the record, I also think the car manufacturer is clearly more important than any of the American towns. MTC (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For better or worse, to most of the 300 million Americans, just about any city in England that is not London is obscure. That does not mean the English cities should not be at [[Cityname]], but they are still subject to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC considerations, which means that in order to be at [[Cityname]] they must be "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)" use of the name. There is no way that the small city in England meets this criteria. For example, search for "Plymouth" at new.google.com and see how many pages deep you have to go before you find a single reference to the city in England. --Serge (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear, another simple fundamental error in search engine use for this sort of quesion. Google News tailors results to the location of your IP - the same test on a computer on the other side of the Atlantic will give the reverse result. Your personal views on American awareness of European geography are personal views, nothing stronger. Knepflerle (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which is why using the UK Google is an illustrative choice. On the UK Google: "Plymouth" + "Massachusetts" = 528,000 hits. "Plymouth" + "Devon" = 456,000. "Plymouth" + "automobile" = 3.49 million.  Ravenswing  18:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind some of the obvious deficiencies of this test, I do not replicate those results in the slightest. Selection based on IP location is still at work. Knepflerle (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If I go to Google dot com and type in Plymouth, 2 million results are for Plymouth State University which is in New Hampshire - maybe we should make this the primary page.Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is a global Wikipedia, not an American one. Article titles shouldn't be decided on what just Americans think of as more notable, it's extremely ethnocentric and violates WP:CSB. This is a major UK city. I have never heard of the Plymouth automobile company and while I have heard of Plymouth, Massachusetts, it is only notable as part of American history, not a global or any other country's history. --Joowwww (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Errr ... "ethnocentric?" That's ... quite an argument. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind that. Beyond that, folks, let's practice some good faith here. It is not a crime to assert, and present facts to assert, that the UK Plymouth is not so overwhelmingly more famous than Plymouth, MA, or the automobile brand that it should possess the name free and clear of disambiguation. Nor are such things automatically ruled by the older or more populous town; I doubt that many of the UK partisans would relish a claim that Guangzhou, Jakarta, Karachi or Lagos were more notable cities than London, but they pip it on both counts.  Ravenswing  16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which UK partisans are these, RGT? The descent into arguments on age and population was predictable given the specious arguments of the move rationale itself, which compares car production to populations as if this discussion were to be won like Top Trumps, finding the highest magnitude number we can associate a topic with. Knepflerle (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Specious arguments? Are you familiar at all with Wikipedia naming conventions? Have you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? These numbers are relevant to the issue of how well known the various uses of "Plymouth" are, and how relatively obscure the city in England is among them. --Serge (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am extremely familiar with them; usage and notability are not simple functions of car-production and population, and to claim otherwise is specious and unsupported by the conventions. Knepflerle (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which UK partisans are these? You have noticed, for one, that every single Oppose user who has made a note of his or her home location lives in England, yes?  Ravenswing  17:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As irrelevant as the fact all supporting voters come from the US, and as irrelevant as my originating country on my arguments and ability to interpret policy. Knepflerle (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite your ability to interpret policy, none of your arguments (or anyone else's) even attempt (much less succeed) to show how Plymouth, Devon meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for being the primary topic (not to be confused with merely "most important") topic for Plymouth. See below. --Serge (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I refer to the only rigorous numerical evidence provided so far below. Knepflerle (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The opposition to this proposal seems to be largely rooted in personal observation, ie. "I have never heard of the automobile company". Objective lines of reasoning, such as pageviews or Google tests, would seem to reveal there is no single primary topic here. It has been pointed out that Wikipedia is a worldwide project and not American, and we should be working to remove the American bias. I agree. Wikipedia is also not British, and thus we should not be picking and choosing based on popular usage in Britain. It is fairly obvious that a disambiguation page is the least biased alternative. Shereth 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The page on disabiguation gives three methods of determining the primary topic (Google, hit count and incomming links. Google is completely useless. Out of 66 million pages that include Plymouth, 3 million also include "UK" while 12 million include US. That leaves 40+ million pages unaccounted for. The fact that pages such as this one about the British Plymouth mention the USA (and not the UK) just show how pointless going down this path can be.

• Plymouth got 34k hits last month, over double the number of Plymouth, MA (15k) and three times the number of hits for the car company (10k). Other pages such as Plymouth, California (321), Plymouth, Connecticut (287) and Plymouth, Iowa (138) have neglegable impact. This majority visitors went to the British Plymouth page. This is tempered slightly by the fact that some visitors for the other pages would have gone via the Plymouth page. For example, 2,000 go to this page but even taking them off Plymouth's total would leave it with over 50% of the hits.

• Plymouth has around 2,500 incoming links while its Massachusetts counterpart get just over 500 and the car company gets below 250. Again other pages have negligible incoming links meaning that Plymouth probably accounts for over 2/3 of the total incoming links. Two out of the three measures suggest that Plymouth is in the right place, while the other is inconclusive. 87.114.19.66 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The google results are neither useless nor inconclusive. They show that there is no primary topic. It's amazing that Plymouth, MA got half the hits of this page considering most would probably get there from Plymouth. If people searching for the car company all came here first, that 34k becomes 24k. Then all the people searching for the MA city came through here, you're down to 24k - 15k = 9k hits for this page. Compare that to the 15k and 10k for the MA city and car maker. But I'll give you the incoming links point, though I need to confirm it. --Serge (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The hit count demonstrates that there is not a primary topic. 30,000 thousand readers are looking for the city in Devon, but at the same time more than 25,000 are not. Yes, between the three major meanings of "Plymouth", Plymouth, Devon is the most searched for and most linked, but that doesn't automatically mean it is the primary topic; per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a primary topic is one that is "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)", and a ratio of reader statitics of 30 to 15 to 10 shows that Plymouth, Devon does not fit this definition. Keep in mind that all 34,000 hits for this page are not intended for Plymouth, Devon; the dab page gets 2,500 hits per month, and readers looking for Plymouth, Massachusetts can get to that article without having to go through the dab page because of the hatnote, meaning that the actual number of readers for the Plymouth, Devon article is probably closer to 28,000 to 30,000 per month. Cheers, Rai•me 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• I was inclined to agree with you, Serge, until I decided to take a peek at the pageviews myself. My first way of looking at it was the same way as you; 15k were looking for the US city, 10k were looking for the car manufacturer, and the rest must have meant the UK city. However, I looked at a few other well-known but ambiguous terms (Mercury, Phoenix, Orange) and discovered something I did not expect : in each case, more people went directly to the disambiguated articles (Mercury (planet), Phoenix, Arizona or Orange (fruit), for example) rather than visited the dab page. The three dab pages averaged about 25% the traffic as their targets, meaning (if this pattern holds), 25% of the traffic to any disambiguated page is inbound from the disambiguation page itself. Extrapolate the data to this example and one can estimate that of the 15k who went to the US city, 3750 came from Plymouth; of the 10k who went to the auto article, 2500 came from the main page. Take those out, and the people left at Plymouth still outnumber the rest by a margin of 27.5k to 15k to 10k, still over 50%. I'd like to see the stats on inbound links confirmed, but the IP may have a point here. Shereth 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit confilict)The problem with google hits, especially relating to place names, is choosing the terms. When refering to Plymouth you could use UK, United Kingdom, England, Devon, or none of the above. Just to give you an idea of the absurdity of using google, "Liverpool UK" only manages 2 million hits while "Liverpool USA" comes up with almost 18 million. Similarly, "Bejjing china" manages 23 million hits while "Bejjing USA" comes up with 44 mil. Plymouth's links with the U.S. is only going to exasibate this problem.

• Your ideas about hit counts completly ignore the fact that people also reach the pages via links, their watchlist or putting the correct page name into the search box. The disambiguation page only receives 2,000 hits that means that less than one fifth of the readers of the motor company (along with all the other disambiguated plymouths) page have gone via the Plymouth page. If a similar percentage have gone to Plymouth, MA via Plymouth it would mean only 3,000 have gone that route. That leaves 29,000 that wanted the Plymouth page. 87.114.19.66 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Since when did 50% of the hits become the definition of the primary topic? Get to 80% and then you can start talking primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The above analysis fails to include the hit count of Plymouth Colony, a fourth primary meaning of "Plymouth". This article gets 35,000 hits per month, as opposed to Plymouth, Devon's 34,000 count. Cheers, Rai•me 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Having over 50% of hits means that if it were to be moved away from Plymouth the majority of visitors to the disambiguation page would actually be wanting Plymouth in England. The current arrangement means that between 50% and 60% of readers are where they want to be with another 25% using the hatnote to get to Plymouth, MA. That means moving the disambiguation page to Plymouth benifits under 25% of the readers.
• I've not included the hit count for Plymouth Colony because its known as Plymouth Colony. The article lead doesn't even list Plymouth as an alternative sudonym. Even in New England if you refer to Plymouth they will automaticly think of the town. New York City gets twice the number of hits as New York, so are you planning a move request for them. 87.114.19.66 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can't just decide not to include Plymouth Colony because of a qualifier in the article title; that would be like not including Plymouth, MA because of the "Massachusetts" qualifier. Plymouth Colony, like Jamestown Colony, is often referred to as simply "Plymouth". (Note the Jamestown article is actually at Jamestown, Virginia). Across the United States, Americans associate "Plymouth" with Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims, and the Plymouth Colony article covers this more in depth than the Plymouth, Massachusetts article. When Plymouth Colony is rightfully included in the prominent meanings of "Plymouth", then we clearly have no primary topic. Cheers, Rai•me 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• ModifiedSupport — Move the auto brand to Plymouth (automobile) and make Plymouth a dab page.There are far too many places named Plymouth for us to give primacy to any one of them over the others...and then there's the auto brand, into the bargain. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The number of places is irrelevant - you know that there's at least fifteen places in the US called Paris, right? Significance of topics is what matters, not the number of topics. Knepflerle (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oy. I had thought it reasonably obvious that I meant there are far too many significant places named Plymouth. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• After reconsidering the statistics here, I must concede that Plymouth (the UK city) appears to have a non-negligible primacy in terms of use. As the numbers make it appear that over 50% of the people are looking for the city, I have no choice but to modify my opinion and oppose this proposal. Shereth 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that Plymouth Colony has not been mentioned here yet. When readers type in "Plymouth" expecting to find information about the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving, they are more likely to go to the article which specifically focuses on this, Plymouth Colony, as opposed to an article about the modern-day town. That article gets 35,000 hits per month, more than ths UK city, and like Jamestown, Virginia, is very often referred to without the "Colony" qualifier. That being said, the UK city then has far less than 50% of the article searches for "Plymouth", and it appears that there are four prominent uses of "Plymouth" as opposed to three. Cheers, Rai•me 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Though this is my proposal, I have not voted yet. When I started this I was of course in support, now I'm not so sure. Shereth has a good point, but Raime has a good counterpoint. The fact that Plymouth Colony has more views per month than Plymouth is very significant. The number of links to Plymouth remains an issue for me, though I still need to confirm this. How do you determine the count? --Serge (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: the proposal mentions that Plymouth is a relatively small town, but this fails to acknowledge its significant maritime history and importance in the south-west region which is a politically and socially distinctive part of England. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Plymouth sold cars in the United States. At least in Europe it is unknown as an automobile manufacturer. 'Disambiguated names should go under...' this means 'if' it is an disambiguated name. The opening statement should say if we were to disambiguate Plymouth then it would need to be to Plymouth, Devon. Stating that Plymouth has no main topic is like saying Charlotte has no main topic, because I think of a girl's name, whereas Wikipedia thinks it's a city in the United States. Also Plymouth is not a small town, but a small to medium sized city. When all such cities are dabed in that way (or a comprehensive proposal applicable to all is adopted) then Plymouth can be. Until then no. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Primary topic is intended to be a very narrow reservation, something like London, where 80% or 90% of all readers may be expected to want a specific meaning of a term - and therefore it is worth not sending that 80 or 90% through a dab page. Here, those who want the Plymouth in Devon will be slightly inconvenienced; they will have to pick the first link off the dab page. Everyone else will be served by getting directly to the dab page instead of having to find the hatnote and click on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'd contest it's as easy to "find" the hatnote as find the required entry on a disambiguation page (and thus we're introducing an inconvenience for a large proportion of the readers for no gain for most of the rest) but it's impossible to prove that either way I suppose. Knepflerle (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's not only about finding and clicking on the hatnote for the dab page, it's about doing that in addition to finding the appropriate topic on the dab page and clicking on that. Given the high view rate of Plymouth Colony relative to Plymouth, this is far from irrelevant. --Serge (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And there is a certain amount of anecdotal evidence that hatnotes don't work as well as we would like to hope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the main reason that the English town is the first thing that I think of when hearing this name, and therefore is the primary topic for this title. – Axman (☏) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This sounds like the disambiguation equivalent of WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't valid reasoning. Primary topics are not determined by what individual editors have and haven't heard of. Cheers, Rai•me 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Plymouth is not an "insignificant city". It is a major centre for the whole Devon and Cornwall region (which means it would have a metro population of 1.6 million if the UK measured things as Americans do), and a major naval centre too. SteveRwanda (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support In the U.S. "Plymouth" without qualifiers most often refers to Plymouth Colony. Even if one discounts this (which there is no particular reason to), the hit counts are not overwhelming for the UK city. If they were of different orders of magnitude, then it would be the primary topic, but that is not the case here. Simply getting the majority of links (and only if one specifically excludes Plymouth Colony, which we should not) does not imply it is the primary topic. Having no primary topic means a disambiguation page is in order. --Polaron | Talk 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are two just-Plymouths on offer. The interwiki links make a convincing argument that one of them is rather more important, globally, than the other. And since this is the global English Wikipedia, not the American one, that's that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is rather more important enough? It has never been held so; we want an overwhelming preponderance before dragging everybody who really wants article A through article B. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The iw ratio is over 20:1 in favour of the English city. Overwhelming enough for you? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Two just-Plymouths"? You cannot overlook the car company and Plymouth Colony, both of which are primary meanings of Plymouth. Including Plymouth Colony (and there is no reason not to do so, since it is often referred to simply as "Plymouth", there is a very strong argument that there is no primary topic here. Yes, this isn't the American Wikipedia, but it isn't the British one either. A dab page would avoid any bias. Cheers, Rai•me 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, two just-Plymouths: English city, rebadged Chevvys. Plymouth Colony or Plymouth, Massachusetts or Plymouth Argyle are something-Plymouths rather than just-Plymouths. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• What exactly makes the Massachusetts city and the colony not qualify as "just-Plymouths"? This is surely an incorrect assertion, as both are often referred to as just "Plymouth". Cheers, Rai•me 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• When the title of an article does not use a name that is commonly used to refer to the topic of that article for some reason, that does not invalidate or even reduce its claim on that name. For example, just because Portland, Maine is not at Portland does not mean Portland, Oregon gets to have Portland. Plymouth Colony and the city in Massachusetts are both commonly referred to as Plymouth. The arguments can be made that Plymouth is the name most commonly used to refer to each, which is why they (and other common uses of the name) are listed at Plymouth (disambiguation). None of those uses, including the U.K. city, meet the criteria of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, which is why the dab page should be at Plymouth. --Serge (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As a Canadian I think I have a more objective point of view, as from my vantage point this argument seems to be divided along national lines. A great deal of the animosity in this discussion could have been avoided if the original proposal was worded more tactfully. That said, frankly I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. I think it's ridiculous to assert that the English city is the 'primary topic' given the importance of Plymouth Colony and Plymouth, Mass. in North American history. That is not to say Plymouth, Devon is not important in its own right, but to say it is more important than all other Plymouths? Preposterous.93JC (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For me Plymouth, Devon is the primary topic for this title, to treat it otherwise would be to put the cart before the horse, without being the start point for the Pilgrim fathers Plymouth, Mass would not have been named the way it was. The inclination to move in favour reflects a US centric worldview and an inclination towards recentism that has been resisted and defeated in other discussions such as the occupation of the Java main title space. Plymouth might be a small city in the US scheme of things but as one of the main UK naval bases it has had a historical impact beyond its mere size.KTo288 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be US-centric to redirect "Plymouth" to Plmouth, Massachusetts or Plymouth Colony, just as it is very UK-centric to leave the article as is; a disambiguation page is the least biased alternative, and is in fact not US-centric because it does not indicate primary topic where none exists. The fact that the Pilgrims departed from Plymouth and that Plymouth, Devon is the "original Plymouth" is irrelevant in determining primary topic among readers (i.e., Boston). There is no doubt that Plymouth, Devon is a major naval base and an important city (this proposal was worded in bad taste), but that doesn't make it the primary topic of "Plymouth". Plymouth Colony/Plymouth, Massachusetts has played a very important role in the history of North America, and is thus also very significant. This move request is much more in line with that of Lancaster than that of Java. Cheers, Rai•me 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how a suggestion, that given the strong case for other Plymouth's being candidates for the primary use, that a compromise position to use the dab page is American centric? I could make a stronger case that the oppose opinions are WP:ILIKEIT and British centric and not supported as a world wide perspective since they are totally unwilling to accept that there is any significant importance to the arguments for any of the American uses.
• Support. As initiator of this proposal my support should be no surprise, though I have to say those in opposition had a stronger argument than I realized (number of internal wikilinks pointed to the article about the city in England), and Shereth almost had me convinced. But the fact than many of those links are from templates (and not content), while Plymouth Colony has about as many links and more from real content refutes that point quite effectively. Suggesting that making Plymouth a dab page is US-Centric (as if keeping it at the UK city is not UK-centric) is a non-starter. Absurd. In the end, there is little or no evidence that the English city has primary usage of the name, particularly in light of PMAnderson's arguments about primary usage intended to be narrow, and plenty of evidence that there is no primary usage, and so Plymouth should be a dab page. --Serge (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually only 8 templates link to Plymouth with less than 300 links between them. This means that Plymouth (2200) still has over twice the number of all the other articles combined (MA - 600, motor company - 100). Even adding Plymouth Colony only provides another 600 links. josh (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But having more links isn't enough to assert primary topic, especially when Plymouth Colony has about 3,000 more hits per month (which is the best assessment, IMO) and Google indicates that no one usage of Plymouth is primary. The number of internal wikilinks is one factor, but it isn't be the only factor, in determining primary topic. And no, it really isn't "over twice the number of all the other articles combined" - you cannot leave out Plymouth Colony. Cheers, Rai•me 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, there is a compelling argument to be made that the U.K. city is the most important use of the name, but that's not coming close to meeting the criteria of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (which is: "much more used than any other"), especially considering that such an argument can be made for the early American colony as well. This is also from WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." Yes it says "may", but this extended discussion (raised repeatedly on this talk page) is just more evidence in support of the argument that there is no primary topic for Plymouth, and it needs to be a dab page. --Serge (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't buy the theory that the majority of users go to Plymouth to research the UK city. How do we know that the hits aren't exclusively to the UK city and not to the other "Plymouth's" on Wikipedia? It's like saying I type in Ford and it is assumed that I want Ford Motor Company (which Ford automatically redirects to) or Henry Ford, not HM Prison Ford or any other Ford. That argument is moot. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support the dab should be primary. If all of the US is not expecting a city in England, obviously, the English city shouldn't be primary. If all of UK is not expecting the car make or American colony, obviously that shouldn't be primary. If Canada expects the car make, and not the English city or American colony, then obviously neither of those should be primary. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support per User:Born2cycle's comments below. Although I think of the English port as the most important topic ("primary" in some respects), WP:PRIMARYUSAGE says that, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." A primary topic is one "much more used than any other" and this discussion seems to preclude that being the case. — AjaxSmack 19:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose AjaxSmack if that is all one needed to do was create an extended discussion about which name is primary to prove that there was no primary topic, then many many names could quickly become disambiguation candidates. using a Google book search there are "21,293 on Plymouth". "4,220 on Plymouth car" + "1,535 on Plymouth automobile -car", "8,250 on Plymouth colony". "12,700 on Plymouth England -colony." + another "2,370 on Plymouth Devon -England" + "1,379 on Plymouth Royal Navy -Devon -England". It seems to me that using Google Books to sample reliable sources that the city is the primary topic, and the dabpage should be a hatnote at the top of the page. --PBS (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Philip, while I agree that the ability of a dedicated few to hold a page hostage is not a good rationale for a page move, I certainly hope that you are not suggesting that the numbers you list for Google Books SUPPORTS the position that the name is not ambiguous. Of the ~21,000 hits (my search returned slightly different numbers, but on the same scale of magnitude) for "Plymouth" -- nearly ALL of the top hits are to books about the New England colony. If anything, your results are extremely compelling evidence that the simple page should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting that on my rough and ready selections more than half of the book references returned in the set of 21,000 for Plymouth refer to the city in Devon, so it is not unreasonable to leave the pages where they are, hence my opposition to the move. --PBS (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, I dispute your "rough and ready selections". By my similarly rough and ready perusal of the results, the vast majority were directly related to the Plymouth Colony. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• How can one say that Plymouth is an obscure automobile brand? Clearly that argument is baseless. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • How can one say that Plymouth is an obscure city? Clearly that argument is baseless, compared to a car brand rarely seen outside North America. Furthermore, I thought following my comment highlighting the absurdity of the last sentence of the move rationale with "seriously" would be a strong enough indicator of its irony, but obviously not. Hope that clarifies. Knepflerle (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It is quite easy to see the British city as obscure. There is the car and the most famous early American city. They are the choices for primary usage. This is a strong case based on facts. The assumption that the entire world has a British bias is wrong. Ignoring the American usages is not good for the encyclopedia. If you go into the discussion with the opinion that Plymouth is the British city and decide to either ignore the other uses around the word, you can not determine if there is a primary use for the word. I would like to see a case made for why the British city is the primary use. That has not been done and the case is being made as to why others could be the primary use. The current main article fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that means we need to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• As to the current target being the most historically significant, clearly the one in Massachusetts is very significant as the site of the pilgrims arrival, the first Thanksgiving and the oldest continually inhabited English settlement in the new world. These are strong cases for primary usage, but a disambiguation page at the main name space is simply the better choice here. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • • • "It is quite easy to see the British city as obscure" - baseless assertions repeated don't become true. "The assumption that the entire world has a British bias is wrong." - the assumption would be unjustified but might be true; this is a point you miss. Phrasing it in these terms is pointless anyway - the assumption hasn't been made, and phrasing it in terms of national bias is unhelpful and irrelevant despite repeated attempts to do so above. "I would like to see a case made for why the British city is the primary use" - the IP has provided some useful numerical results with more rigorous foundations than the specious arguments given in the move rationale. Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All your examples are relevant to American history and American primary usage, not global history or global primary usage. Your argument isn't exactly representing a global viewpoint, IMO. --Joowwww (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The argument isn't supposed to represent a global viewpoint; the point is that there is no single, worldwide primary usage of "Plymouth." Yes, the examples are relevant only to American history, but this is because American readers are just as likely to search for "Plymouth" as British readers. Keeping the UK city at "Plymouth" shows a UK bias, just as redirecting "Plymouth" to Plymouth, Massachustts would show a US bias, but making "Plymouth" a dab pahe shows no bias. Cheers, Rai•me 21:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually my examples do show an appreciation for the world wide view. Apparently you agree that there are at least two candidates for an American primary use. So in some respects this could then be a discussion over using the British or American primary use. But I support the suggestion that it should be neither based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and go directly to the disambiguation page. How can you say that approach does not represent a consideration of global history or global primary usage? I guess I should then make the case that those opposing a move are taking the 'British history and British primary usage, not global history or global primary usage' point of view. Or in other words, the I like it argument. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To digress from the discussion, the occasional incorrect link to Plymouth intended to be for Plymouth, Massachusetts has resulted in my visiting odd pages and learning something new. But I'm an inveterate surfer. I'm not sure how we can quantify what people 'want' to find when they search. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

UK vs. worldwide perspective

Well, assuming good faith, I have to believe that the incredulity expressed here in opposition to this proposal is genuine. Perhaps in the UK the relative obscurity of the city in England is really unfathomable. But by what objective standard can it be shown that the city in England is the primary topic for "Plymouth" worldwide? As I noted in a comment above, it's very hard to find a single reference to the English small city if you search for Plymouth at news.google.com. However, I have to admit, that if you do a similar search at search.bbc.co.uk all of the hits on the first page are about the city in England. Clearly, if this was a UK-only Wikipedia, then the city would be the primary topic. So that explains the strong opposition to this proposal from the Brits here. But Wikipedia is not for the UK only. This is a worldwide resource and from any other perspective, particularly from the American one in which the automobile brand and historical Pilgrim settlement are much better known, this city does not come anywhere close to being the primary topic per the official primary topic guidelines. --Serge (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

by what objective standard can it be shown that the city in England is the primary topic for "Plymouth" worldwide?

As far as towns/cities go, population is the fairest and most obvious way of showing that the city of 250,000 is more important than a town of 50,000. As for the city vs. the car manufacturer, well, the fact that the car manufacturer doesn't exist anymore should mean something. That said, I am not entirely convinced that the city is more important than the car manufacturer, and if the car manufacturer was still operating then I would probably say that was the primary topic. MTC (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Population is irrelevant to determining primary topic. By that logic, Worcester, Massachusetts would be at "Worcester" instead of Worcester, Worcestershire. All that matters here is what a reader expects to find when typing in "Plymouth"; for US readers, the target article will most likely be the Massachusetts town or the car brand, for UK users, the target will be the city in Devon, and for English-speakers outside of both countries it would probably be the car brand. There is clearly no primary topic here. There is no evidence to suggest that English speakers from all over the world, and not just the UK, are looking for Plymouth, Devon when typing in "Plymouth". Cheers, Rai•me 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See my note on the invalid use of Google News above. Who says everyone opposing is British? It's equally irrelevant to point out everyone supporting appears to reside in America, and then go on to say "Clearly, if this were a US-only Wikipedia, then the city in MA would be the primary topic. So that explains the strong support for this proposal from the Americans here. But Wikipedia is not for the US only". The characterisation of the current situation as a UK-only view is unsubstantiated. Knepflerle (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

MTC, Showing that topic A is more important than topic B does not prove that topic A is the primary topic. That is, there may very well be no primary topic for a given name. To be a primary topic the hurdle that must be jumped is not mere "more important than the other uses", but "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)" (from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Note that no one is arguing that the MA city or even the auto brand is the primary topic - we're saying there is no primary topic for this name, and that's why there should be a dab page at Plymouth.

So I ask again, by what objective standard can it be shown that the city in England is the primary topic for "Plymouth" worldwide? --Serge (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite. A claim of American-centric bias would be valid if (say) there was an American-based push to replace the Devonshire city with the Massachusetts town as the article to which Plymouth linked. No one has made any such proposal.  Ravenswing  18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have just looked at the oppose opinions and they seem to be completely lacking in any demonstration that there is a primary topic for Plymouth. Most of these clearly show an anti American bias in favoring the British city. Without any demonstration that there is a primary topic there is none (really it is this simple). If there is none then the disambiguation page must be moved. Primary topic as mentioned above is some significant number of inquiries. There has been no case made that the current article meets that high standard in any way, shape or form. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the claim that there is much higher number of legitimate links within Wikipedia to the city in England than to any other use of the name is potentially relevant, but I need to see that verified and I don't know how. --Serge (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• You use Special:WhatLinksHere. Keep in mind, however, that one reason Plymouth, Devon has so many links is because of templates; glancing through the list, it seems that at least hundreds of the links stem from templates and not from wikilinks in article context. In contrast, Plymouth Colony, despite having slightly less than 1,000 links, isn't linked to by any templates. Anyway, traffic statistics are usually a better test of primary topic then links, and the fact that Plymouth, Devon has at least 1,000 less readers per month than Plymouth Colony indicates that it isn't the primary topic. Cheers, Rai•me 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see how to generate a list at Special:WhatLinksHere. I don't see where the total count of links is specified. --Serge (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• The total count isn't specified; you go through pages 500 links at a time and then count from there. Cheers, Rai•me 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Colony

Moving this discussion so that the survey doesn't get too cluttered (although that horse has probably bolted already). Plymouth Colony and Jamestown are not comparable. Jamestown refers to a settlement within Virginia Colony. The Jamestown article refers to it simply as Jamestown whereas the Plymouth Colony article doesn't even list Plymouth as sutable alternative. Colony is not a qualifier but part of its name. Plymouth was not the capital of Plymouth it was the capital of Plymouth Colony. I seriously doubt anyone even refers to the colony as Plymouth because of confusion with its capital but then its up to you that Plymouth Colony is refered to simply as Plymouth. 87.114.19.66 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Colony is known widely across the U.S. as "Plymouth", and that is all that matters here. It is the Plymouth Colony article - not the Plymouth, Massachusetts article - that covers the landing of the Pilgrims, the First Thanksgiving, etc. in great detail, and this is what American readers expect when typing in Plymouth. IMO, your "serious doubt" is wrong - readers from outside of New England will likely be unfamiliar with the modern town, and will associate "Plymouth" only with the colony. Thus, it doesn't matter at all that the "Plymouth Colony article doesn't even list Plymouth as suitable alternative", as long as readers refer to it as Plymouth, which is very much the case. You cannot definitely not ignore the 35,000 readers looking for Plymouth Colony when determining the primary topic of Plymouth. Cheers, Rai•me 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A slightly modified proposal

Let's move the auto brand to Plymouth (automobile), in the pattern of DeSoto (automobile). Then let's go ahead and make Plymouth into a dab page. There are far too many places named Plymouth for us to reasonably and satisfactorily decide which one gets primacy by dint of article name, and the heated discussion above clearly demonstrates we'll never get consensus if we carry on pushing in that direction.

Also, let's all have a nice cup of tea and a sit down; there is far more fur flying here than the question merits. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The auto brand is already at Plymouth (automobile); therefore I'm not sure what the modification here is over the existing proposal? Shereth 23:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to break off to a new discussion at this point, and progress is being made. Furthermore - the car make is already at the location you request - Plymouth (automobile). Just let this go to term and see what happens. Knepflerle (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Knepflerle, thanks for pointing out my error regarding the auto brand article's location, but please try to be a little less dismissive, scoldy, and patronising, won't you? We don't exclude others' relevant thoughts during the consensus-building process, eh? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You may not like what I said, but there is nothing uncivil whatsoever in what I said or how I said it. You can check this yourself with the list of points here. If you have any further questions in this regard, feel free to leave a note at my talk page. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion is evidence of lack of usage primacy

I'll start this by quoting from WP:PRIMARYUSAGE:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

I submit that the extended discussion above about whether the city in the U.K. is the primary topic is evidence (not proof) that it is not. There is similar evidence from a few years ago manifested as a requested move proposal and resulting extended discussion at Talk:Plymouth here. There is also this discussion, which started with the requested move, but extended through 2007 and into 2008. There was also a short discussion here.

All the various relatively high reference counts with other uses of Plymouth aside that put the primacy of the U.K. city usage of the name in question, these extended discussions over years comprise a compelling argument alone that Plymouth has no primary topic and needs to be a dab page. --Serge (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move dab page to ambiguous title

In light of the recent requested move, readers here may be interested in the outcome of a recent move of Weymouth to Weymouth, Dorset followed by disambiguation of links to Weymouth. It turns out fully 40% (400 links) did not intend Weymouth, Dorset. I am glad that Weymouth now is a disambiguation page, as it is guaranteed to accumulate more links needing disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dorset doesn't have a WikiProject. Jolly Janner (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It may get one. It is a future Olympic Games venue. Thorough disambiguation of links, rather than redirects that "fix" most links, will be in order. --Una Smith (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weymouth is much different. It is not a very big settlement and I live in England and have never even heard of it, and Plymouth is further away from me! If Plymouth does get moved to Plymouth, Devon, then I reccoment moving Boston to Boston, Massachuetes, since the city it was named after (Boston in Lincolnshire) is a similar size difference between Plymouth in US and UK. Bezuidenhout (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plymouth which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Irrespective of the move discussion on the Devon city, this page is poor. Plymouth Colony isn't even mentioned for instance.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are 386 articles with the name Plymouth in them. Where do we draw the line? Also, does there appear to be some order in the way the articles are listed i.e. by number of hits perhaps? Jolly Ω Janner 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering Plymouth Colony is often referred to as just "Plymouth", I'd say the line ought to be drawn somewhere on the far side of Plymouth Colony. =) Powers ^T 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we include all the cars at list of Plymouth vehicles too? Jolly Ω Janner 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's guidance at WP:PTM  —SMALLJIM  15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not very specific on the cut-off point for how many people should refer to the article as its name. It would appear as though Plymouth Colony should be included, based on the fact that some Americans call it that, but I know little about the car brands usage. If it's a popular car make referred to as "Plymouth" sometimes then sure. Also, Plymouth Argyle are referred to as "Plymouth" in English football... again, which side of the boundary does this lye? Jolly Ω Janner 16:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You know how WP is supposed to work by now, JJ! You consider the available guidance and take a view on what should be done. Then unless you consider it too minor an issue, you attempt to discuss it with others. Finally, you implement it; based on consensus if there was other input; or just do what you think is right if not. If appropriate it will be adjusted later by others following the same process.  —SMALLJIM  17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep! Just waiting for some people with more knowledge on the car brand to come along to contribute their thoughts. Jolly Ω Janner 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A possible method may be to adopt something similar to Lincoln listing the major topics before getting into the full listing. I do feel uncomfortable with Plymouth, MA being buried in the list of American towns.

With respect to the car issue - I don't think they need to be listed here unless any of those models is actually known as "Plymouth" and not as a type of Plymouth. For example, the Plymouth Barracuda probably shouldn't be mentioned here but is at Barracuda (disambiguation). A more relevant example to us Brits - the Ford Transit is listed at Transit.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Same is true for Argyle, they are commonly called "Plymouth" so should be here - just like they are at pilgrim (disambiguation)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the page is a disgrace and shouldn't stay so for any longer, irrespective of any move decision. As a start I've added the major uses to the top, along the lines of Cambridge (disambiguation). Please discuss or adjust, as appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good so far. How about removing the car brand and town in MA in their respectice sections, as they are currently repeated twice? Also, remove the transport section? The car brand should be moved, the steam engine doesn't have an article and the ships aren't really transport. Could possibly move them to other uses? Jolly Ω Janner 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I followed the Cambridge example, where at least the settlements were repeated in the lists below. I assumed that since the recent change there was made by JHunterJ, who appears to know what he's doing, this is so that people who don't read headings get a second chance to find what they want. I didn't check further, but it seems like a sensible thing to do, so I left the cars one too. If I may, I'll leave the rest to you or someone else.  —SMALLJIM  15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that that's sensible. Also in other uses (maybe in the cause of transatlantic relations) I'm thinking it's worth putting in Plymouth Gin directly on this page under 'other uses'. Reckon that's an example where 'Plymouth' might be used in isolation. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I support JHunterJ's decision 100% on this Purplebackpack89 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Ships section because HMS Plymouth and USS Plymouth already have their own list pages. Also the section wasn't formatted according to MOS:DAB: "each entry should have one navigable (blue) link" and "the article title should appear exactly as it is on the target page". I know these faults could have been corrected, but since the list pages already exist, and the likelihood of readers navigating here from Plymouth, rather than entering HMS or USS Plymouth is not high, I thought it better to replace the section with two entries under "See also". Happy to discuss.  —SMALLJIM  17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Jolly Ω Janner 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can find no guidance on DAB to list articles. My reasoning goes like this - list articles must conform to the usual standards as normal articles (refs etc). Other DAB pages link to list articles (not just with name lists) without them being placed in the See also section. I have reinstated the section, as per precedent rather than guideline. Any thoughts? maybe WP:MOSDAB should detail this (similar to section on WP:DAB#Double disambiguation). As per my edit summary, I cleaned up the DAB slightly (see my edit summary), including a lookfrom to access all the other articles. As per discussion on most popular links at the top, are we agreed on them. I moved Plymouth Company down to the business section. If this is, in fact, a most popular topic (I do not know), please discuss or place back at top. Widefox (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Moving Plymouth Company out of the leaders was OK - http://stats.grok.se/ shows that it's not visited anything like as often as the others. Might I suggest a few changes though? Firstly, the leading articles should probably be repeated in the relevant sections below, for the reasons I explained above, and approved by others. Then if we renamed ==Ships== as ==Transport== we could add List of Plymouth vehicles to it. We could also move Plymouth Township (disambiguation) under ===United States=== and scrap Barbican, Plymouth which doesn't really deserve its own entry. Those changes would leave ==See also== with just two very general entries, which seems appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all points - done. ... Leading articles should be duplicated - oops, missed that discussion above - fixed. Transport heading is back (full circle to my original edit!). Widefox (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Project banners

• sigh* Why does it matter if projects want to tag disambiguation pages? Talk:Lincoln/Archive 3#Removal of project designation indicates if a project feels a need for it can, but that doesn't automatically imply all projects should be included in a monster list of tags. I have two concerns here about the removal of the WP:DEVON tag:
• Firstly, if the project banners are inappropriate - why keep another one?
• Secondly, the purpose of a banner is to allow projects to monitor pages of interest to them. In this case, 4 of the entries on this page relate to the English Plymouth and its reasonable to assume WP:DEVON would like to ensure users looking for Plymouth can find it via this page. The fact the page itself was recently improved by Devon editors indicates that that project has an interest in this page.

Reverted removal of the tag...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I lose count of the number of times a move request about Plymouth has been posted on the WP Devon talk page. It is indeed a priority of the WikiProject.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a project wants to tag DAB pages then that is allowed and the banners have DAB built in as well as Categories, templates and a variety of other things. --Kumioko (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Copied from Talk:Plymouth, where it seems to have been put due to some confusion: PamD 16:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plymouth which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

current usage stats

I happened to come across this by going through the list of places that linked to Charlotte.

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Plymouth indicates that in October '23, there were 29.4k incoming views of Plymouth, a substantial part of which could be identified as 7k clickstreams to 142 destinations. Because the topic of the city is currently in the primary topic position, at the base title, the organic reader interest in the city is mixed with any other traffic for other Plymouth topics. It is interesting that the hatnote link to the disambiguation page is #2 in the list with 427 identified outgoing clickstreams. It's hard to say, but this could be an indication that there's no primary topic by usage.

The archive of clickstreams that goes back to 2017 could be consulted to get a more coherent view of this. For example,

• clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Plymouth Plymouth_(disambiguation) link 422
• clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Plymouth Plymouth_(disambiguation) link 460
• clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Plymouth Plymouth_(disambiguation) link 427

--Joy (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So, in summary, this may or may not indicate that some people are looking for an alternative Plymouth, and that, in itself, is only a part of how we determine primary topic. I am sure you have read an article where you click from one thing to the next so you must be aware that there are multiple reasons for this pattern of traffic. If you think page hits are an unreliable method in determining primary topic, then perhaps they shouldn't be used for that purpose. Out of interest, what conclusion would you reach from analysing the traffic statistics for Boston? [[1]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, this is just a possible indication, it's not conclusive by any stretch of imagination. I'm not sure what you mean by the page hits sentence, can you explain? For Boston, the overall traffic is five times as high so it's even harder to try to read into the standard comparison of incoming and outgoing clickstreams for the hatnote. There's a possibly significant difference between the overall ratio of incoming and outgoing, 153.7/57.4 =~ 2.67 vs. 26.3/7 =~ 3.75, meaning the Boston article with its 535 identified outgoing destinations seems to get more people to click through than the Plymouth article with its 142, which could be caused by any number of things. Over there, the hatnote is at #8 in the top list, and its clickstream counts are:

• clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Boston Boston_(disambiguation) link 1053
• clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Boston Boston_(disambiguation) link 1111
• clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Boston Boston_(disambiguation) link 1045

In turn, we could look at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Plymouth_%28disambiguation%29 and https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Boston_%28disambiguation%29 and try to find some patterns. Both seem to have a single most significant alternate topic, and the standard response to this would be to add each of these two directly into the respective hatnotes. --Joy (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

One other comparison that might be indicative is the ratio of how much of the outgoing clickstreams go to the hatnote vs. how much goes anywhere. In this case it's Plymouth ~6% and Boston ~2%. Again this could be caused by various different things, and we'd probably have to go look for many other examples in order to figure out if there's some sort of a pattern. --Joy (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I often check out the disambiguation page after reading an article just to see what other topics share the title and sometimes I read one of those articles as a result but that doesn't mean I was initially looking for something else. However, let us suppose for a moment that I am the only one who does such a thing. Ignoring partial title matches, perhaps 12% of people are looking for an alternative Plymouth (Plymouth disambig = 6.1%, Plymouth Ma = 5.9%). This compares favourably with 12.1% who are looking for another Dallas (Dallas Metroplex = 6.5%, Dallas County = 3%, Dallas disambig = 2.6%) and the 12.1% who are seeking another Miami (Miami Dade County = 5.5%, Miami Metro area = 4.3%, Downtown Miami = 2.3%).

This is before we take into account that the stats cover America's thanksgiving period which causes large unusual upsurges in the search for other Plymouths and massively skews the results.

And before we take into account that page views are the least important part of determining primary topic. Which is why the colour is the primary topic despite 44.9% looking for another pink (pink singer - 28.4%, shades of pink = 9.8%, pink disambig = 6.7%). --Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ignoring partial title matches' and then go on to say that a clickstream from Dallas to related things also named after it are relevant. These aren't necessarily clicks that strongly indicate ambiguity of the base term - people could be just logically clicking these because these links appear relevant and/or prominent in these articles. Also, page view statistics aren't really the least important part of determining primary topics, please see WP:DPT for a specific guideline on how that should be done. --Joy (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Despite what the guidelines say, page views are of least importance. That is why they are routinely ignored when deciding the primary topic. See for example: pink, blue, red, apple, blackberry, typhoon, cobra, avatar, titanic, house, Notting Hill, elf, Elysium, gladiator, saw, John Paul Jones (among many, many others) --Ykraps (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would still temper that assessment, the point isn't to relegate usage to the position of least importance, rather the objective is to provide a balanced navigation setup. Also I'm not sure what you mean with some of those examples, as I don't ever remember seeing any controversy about the title with regards to usage vs. significance at e.g. Talk:Typhoon, Talk:House or Talk:Elf. --Joy (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no controversy because nobody thinks it important that 10 times as many people are looking for a TV series rather than the primary topic, a dwelling [[2]] or that more than three times as many readers are looking for an aeroplane and not a tropical storm [[3]] or a film instead of a mythical being [[4]]. The last one also demonstrates how a particular season or event can affect page views. --Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everyone has completely ignored page view statistics, it's just that people recognize they aren't the end-all argument for primary topics, just as the fine guideline advises. For example, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=House indicates that in October '23, there were 20.1k views of House, from which we could identify 1.51k outgoing clickstreams to the hatnote, which is ~7.5% compared to total incoming, and compared to total identified outgoing 7.1k, ~21%. At the same time, there's a hatnote for house music with just 172 views in the same time period. Also, once the readers reached the disambiguation page, they didn't all beeline towards the TV series - it's actually well behind two movies, per https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=House_%28disambiguation%29 and the titular character likewise gets comparable interest, as do more films etc. This could also be at least in part because it's sorted under "Arts, entertainment, and media -> Other media". If we changed the navigation a bit to make this more straightforward for readers, we might well see different results. All I'm saying we should steer clear of judging all this quickly, rather the matter should be analyzed with the appropriate amount of rigor. --Joy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)